Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1189 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999 which will equip Federal law enforcement authorities with new tools to prosecute the fight against microcap securities fraud that costs unwary investors an estimated $6 billion annually. While cold-calling families at dinnertime and high-pressure sales remain a favorite tactic of microcap con artists, the Internet is providing a new and inviting frontier for the commission of microcap frauds. I find it particularly disturbing that despite the best efforts of regulatory authorities, microcap scam artists often commit repeat offenses. Similarly, under current law, persons barred from other segments of the financial industry, such as banking or insurance, can easily bring their deceptive practices into our securities markets. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of two of my distinguished colleagues in introducing this important legislation. Senator Cleland and Senator Gregg are united with me in a commitment to ensure that security regulators have the necessary authority to crack down on securities fraud. Senator Cleland has a longstanding interest in protecting investors from securities scams. Senator Gregg also has been a leader in this arena in his position as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the SEC's budgets. In drafting this legislation, I was also pleased to have the invaluable assistance of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association which represents State securities regulators. In fact, Richard H. Walker, the SEC's Director of Enforcement, and Peter C. Hildreth, the President of NASAA, have submitted letters endorsing my legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my statement.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit No. 1 Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, May 24, 1999. Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Collins: I commend both you and your Subcommittee for addressing the important issue of fraud in the market for microcap securities. As I said in my March 23, 1999 testimony before your Subcommittee, fighting fraud in this market has been one of the Commission's more significant challenges this decade. The hearings you held help to focus the issues and educate investors, and the principles in the bill you plan to introduce will help leverage the Commission's resources to combat microcap fraud. As you know, Chairman Levitt testified on microcap fraud before your Subcommittee in September 1997. He noted then that with our resources remaining relatively constant, we must ``rely increasingly on innovative and efficient ways of minimizing fraud and of maximizing the deterrence achievable with the Commission's limited resources.'' In my own view, the concepts underlying ``The Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999'' would be of great assistance to us in this regard. Most importantly, the bill would give us valuable new tools to close off participation in the microcap market by those who would prey on innocent investors. In recent years, the Commission has made significant inroads in the fight against microcap fraud. I appreciate your efforts to address this serious problem through hearings and legislation that support our enforcement efforts. I believe your bill would significantly advance the cause and help make our markets safer for investors. My staff and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your Subcommittee on this legislation. Very truly yours, Richard H. Walker, Director, Division of Enforcement.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Collins-Cleland-Gregg legislation is the product of hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which I chair. We first started looking at this issue in 1997 and held our first hearing in September of that year. Those hearings revealed that microcap securities fraud is pervasive, so much so that regulators estimated that it cost investors $6 billion in losses annually, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. The damage from these microcap scams, however, is not confined to investor losses. They also damage the reputation of legitimate small companies and limit their ability to raise capital through the securities markets. Ironically, the strong performance of the securities markets over the past several years has provided an ideal breeding ground for these microcap scams as more and more Americans invest in stocks. In fact, according to the SEC, in 1980, only 1 in 18 individual Americans participated in the securities markets. Today, 1 in 3 Americans participate in the securities markets. There has been a tremendous growth in more and more American households investing in equities. In a typical microcap fraud, an unscrupulous broker, often acting through an intermediary, purchases large blocks of shares in a small company with dubious business and financial prospects. The company stock may be nearly worthless, but the brokers repeatedly cold call customers, promise glowing returns and drive up the stock through high- pressure sales tactics. Inevitably, after the manipulators sell their shares at a profit, the artificially inflated price plummets, leaving thousands of unsophisticated investors with worthless stock and heavy losses. The manipulators then count their ill-gotten gains and move on to their next target. The subcommittee's investigation demonstrated that the rapid growth of the Internet has also provided a new frontier for the commission of microcap securities frauds. At hearings held by the subcommittee last March, expert witnesses testified that while the Internet provides many, many benefits to online investors, such as lower trading costs and a wealth of investment information, the medium is inviting to con men as well. Specifically, the Internet makes it easier and cheaper for microcap scam artists to contact potential victims and to perpetrate pump-and- dump schemes or related securities frauds. Rather than having to cold call potential victims one at a time, con men with home computers and Internet access can reach millions of potential investors with the click of a mouse. At a very low cost, these cybercrooks can deceive many more victims using professionally designed web sites, online financial newsletters or bulk e-mail. SEC officials testified that the agency now receives hundreds of e-mail complaints per day, an estimated 70 percent of which involve potential Internet securities frauds. For example, a constituent of mine from Ellsworth, ME, who appeared at the subcommittee's hearings, testified that he lost more than $20,000 in a sophisticated Internet securities scam. My constituent has an engineering degree, and he has been investing for nearly 10 years. This demonstrates the potential risk that Internet fraud poses to even experienced investors. Although the SEC has brought charges against the alleged perpetrators of this scam, it is, unfortunately, very unlikely that my constituent will ever be able to recover his losses. Whether they use cold calls, the Internet, or both, microcap scam artists rarely strike only once. The subcommittee's investigations have found that when regulators close down one microcap scam, often after very lengthy proceedings, it is very common for the perpetrators to pop up in connection with yet another securities fraud. Moreover, individuals who have committed consumer frauds in other financial services industries, such as insurance or banking, frequently move on to work in the securities industry. Our regulatory system must be able to prevent these individuals who have violated the law from migrating freely from one financial sector to another. I commend the actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the State securities regulators in aggressively fighting microcap securities fraud, but they are simply overwhelmed with the magnitude of the problem. The SEC has established a special unit to monitor the Internet for potential microcap or similar stock securities scams and has initiated 83 enforcement actions against approximately 250 individuals and companies who have allegedly committed Internet securities frauds. Similarly, in July of 1998, the State securities regulators, represented by NASAA, announced that the State securities regulators had filed 100 enforcement actions in a ``sweep'' against illegal boiler room operations. Approximately 64 of these enforcement actions involved brokers peddling microcap stocks. Despite these commendable efforts, however, the SEC and State regulators face significant challenges just to keep up with the explosive growth of microcap securities fraud, particularly on the Internet. The legislation that I am introducing today is designed to bolster the SEC's ability to protect investors from ever-increasing microcap frauds while ensuring that legitimate small companies can continue to raise capital through securities offerings. To accomplish these objectives, the bill will streamline the microcap fraud investigative process and provide the SEC with the tools it needs to suspend or ban rogue brokers, particularly those who have a history of committing fraudulent offenses. Specifically, our legislation will do the following: First, it will allow the SEC to bring enforcement actions against securities fraud violators on the basis of enforcement actions brought by State securities regulators. Currently, State regulators can rely on SEC-initiated enforcement actions, but the SEC does not have reciprocal authority. Consequently, the SEC must often conduct duplicative investigations before the agency can bring enforcement actions against microcap securities frauds first identified at the State level but which operate on a nationwide basis. With the new authority proposed by our legislation, the SEC and the State regulators will be able to maximize the impact of their limited enforcement resources. Second, our legislation would permit the SEC to keep out of the securities business unscrupulous individuals from other sectors of the financial services industry. As I stated previously, persons with histories of violations too often roam freely throughout the financial services industry and commit new frauds. The bill would allow the SEC to prevent individuals who have ripped off consumers in insurance or banking scams from similarly defrauding America's small investors. Third, our legislation will broaden the current penny stock bar to include fraudulent violations in the microcap markets. Under current law, the SEC can suspend or bar individuals who commit serious penny stock frauds involving stocks that cost less than $5. You may be surprised to learn, however, that the law permits such violators to participate in micro-cap securities offerings, because even though the total capitalization of these companies is small, each of their shares costs more than $5. Our bill will close this loophole by allowing the SEC to suspend or bar individuals who have committed serious penny stock fraud from participating in both the penny stock and micro-cap securities markets either as registered brokers or in related positions, such as promoters. Fourth, our proposal will expand the statutory officer and director bar to include all publicly traded companies. Current law applies only to companies that report to the SEC, leaving the door open for violators to serve as officers or directors of all other companies. Our proposal would extend the bar to include all publicly traded businesses, including ``Pink Sheet'' or Over The Counter (``OTC'') Bulletin Board companies, which are often the vehicles for micro-cap fraud schemes. Finally, our bill will strengthen the SEC's ability to take enforcement actions against repeat violators. Currently, the SEC must request that the Justice Department initiate criminal contempt proceedings against individuals who violate SEC orders or court injunctions, which can be a very burdensome and timely process. Our legislation would allow the SEC to seek immediate civil penalties for repeat violators without the need to file criminal contempt proceedings. Our Nation is blessed with the strongest and safest security markets in the world. This is a tribute to both the industry and its regulators. Unfortunately, as our markets bring benefits to more and more Americans, they also attract those who would exploit unsuspecting investors through manipulative practices. By virtue of their small size and relative obscurity, microcap securities are the most susceptible to manipulation. By giving the SEC the tools it needs to combat this fraud, this legislation will benefit not only individual investors, but also the vast majority of legitimate small businesses who contribute so much to our Nation's growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit No. 1 Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, May 24, 1999. Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Collins: I commend both you and your Subcommittee for addressing the important issue of fraud in the market for microcap securities. As I said in my March 23, 1999 testimony before your Subcommittee, fighting fraud in this market has been one of the Commission's more significant challenges this decade. The hearings you held help to focus the issues and educate investors, and the principles in the bill you plan to introduce will help leverage the Commission's resources to combat microcap fraud. As you know, Chairman Levitt testified on microcap fraud before your Subcommittee in September 1997. He noted then that with our resources remaining relatively constant, we must ``rely increasingly on innovative and efficient ways of minimizing fraud and of maximizing the deterrence achievable with the Commission's limited resources.'' In my own view, the concepts underlying ``The Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999'' would be of great assistance to us in this regard. Most importantly, the bill would give us valuable new tools to close off participation in the microcap market by those who would prey on innocent investors. In recent years, the Commission has made significant inroads in the fight against microcap fraud. I appreciate your efforts to address this serious problem through hearings and legislation that support our enforcement efforts. I believe your bill would significantly advance the cause and help make our markets safer for investors. My staff and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your Subcommittee on this legislation. Very truly yours, Richard H. Walker, Director, Division of Enforcement.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Collins-Cleland-Gregg legislation is the product of hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which I chair. We first started looking at this issue in 1997 and held our first hearing in September of that year. Those hearings revealed that microcap securities fraud is pervasive, so much so that regulators estimated that it cost investors $6 billion in losses annually, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. The damage from these microcap scams, however, is not confined to investor losses. They also damage the reputation of legitimate small companies and limit their ability to raise capital through the securities markets. Ironically, the strong performance of the securities markets over the past several years has provided an ideal breeding ground for these microcap scams as more and more Americans invest in stocks. In fact, according to the SEC, in 1980, only 1 in 18 individual Americans participated in the securities markets. Today, 1 in 3 Americans participate in the securities markets. There has been a tremendous growth in more and more American households investing in equities. In a typical microcap fraud, an unscrupulous broker, often acting through an intermediary, purchases large blocks of shares in a small company with dubious business and financial prospects. The company stock may be nearly worthless, but the brokers repeatedly cold call customers, promise glowing returns and drive up the stock through high- pressure sales tactics. Inevitably, after the manipulators sell their shares at a profit, the artificially inflated price plummets, leaving thousands of unsophisticated investors with worthless stock and heavy losses. The manipulators then count their ill-gotten gains and move on to their next target. The subcommittee's investigation demonstrated that the rapid growth of the Internet has also provided a new frontier for the commission of microcap securities frauds. At hearings held by the subcommittee last March, expert witnesses testified that while the Internet provides many, many benefits to online investors, such as lower trading costs and a wealth of investment information, the medium is inviting to con men as well. Specifically, the Internet makes it easier and cheaper for microcap scam artists to contact potential victims and to perpetrate pump-and- dump schemes or related securities frauds. Rather than having to cold call potential victims one at a time, con men with home computers and Internet access can reach millions of potential investors with the click of a mouse. At a very low cost, these cybercrooks can deceive many more victims using professionally designed web sites, online financial newsletters or bulk e-mail. SEC officials testified that the agency now receives hundreds of e-mail complaints per day, an estimated 70 percent of which involve potential Internet securities frauds. For example, a constituent of mine from Ellsworth, ME, who appeared at the subcommittee's hearings, testified that he lost more than $20,000 in a sophisticated Internet securities scam. My constituent has an engineering degree, and he has been investing for nearly 10 years. This demonstrates the potential risk that Internet fraud poses to even experienced investors. Although the SEC has brought charges against the alleged perpetrators of this scam, it is, unfortunately, very unlikely that my constituent will ever be able to recover his losses. Whether they use cold calls, the Internet, or both, microcap scam artists rarely strike only once. The subcommittee's investigations have found that when regulators close down one microcap scam, often after very lengthy proceedings, it is very common for the perpetrators to pop up in connection with yet another securities fraud. Moreover, individuals who have committed consumer frauds in other financial services industries, such as insurance or banking, frequently move on to work in the securities industry. Our regulatory system must be able to prevent these individuals who have violated the law from migrating freely from one financial sector to another. I commend the actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the State securities regulators in aggressively fighting microcap securities fraud, but they are simply overwhelmed with the magnitude of the problem. The SEC has established a special unit to monitor the Internet for potential microcap or similar stock securities scams and has initiated 83 enforcement actions against approximately 250 individuals and companies who have allegedly committed Internet securities frauds. Similarly, in July of 1998, the State securities regulators, represented by NASAA, announced that the State securities regulators had filed 100 enforcement actions in a ``sweep'' against illegal boiler room operations. Approximately 64 of these enforcement actions involved brokers peddling microcap stocks. Despite these commendable efforts, however, the SEC and State regulators face significant challenges just to keep up with the explosive growth of microcap securities fraud, particularly on the Internet. The legislation that I am introducing today is designed to bolster the SEC's ability to protect investors from ever-increasing microcap frauds while ensuring that legitimate small companies can continue to raise capital through securities offerings. To accomplish these objectives, the bill will streamline the microcap fraud investigative process and provide the SEC with the tools it needs to suspend or ban rogue brokers, particularly those who have a history of committing fraudulent offenses. Specifically, our legislation will do the following: First, it will allow the SEC to bring enforcement actions against securities fraud violators on the basis of enforcement actions brought by State securities regulators. Currently, State regulators can rely on SEC-initiated enforcement actions, but the SEC does not have reciprocal authority. Consequently, the SEC must often conduct duplicative investigations before the agency can bring enforcement actions against microcap securities frauds first identified at the State level but which operate on a nationwide basis. With the new authority proposed by our legislation, the SEC and the State regulators will be able to maximize the impact of their limited enforcement resources. Second, our legislation would permit the SEC to keep out of the securities business unscrupulous individuals from other sectors of the financial services industry. As I stated previously, persons with histories of violations too often roam freely throughout the financial services industry and commit new frauds. The bill would allow the SEC to prevent individuals who have ripped off consumers in insurance or banking scams from similarly defrauding America's small investors. Third, our legislation will broaden the current penny stock bar to include fraudulent violations in the microcap markets. Under current law, the SEC can suspend or bar individuals who commit serious penny stock frauds involving stocks that cost less than $5. You may be surprised to learn, however, that the law permits such violators to participate in micro-cap securities offerings, because even though the total capitalization of these companies is small, each of their shares costs more than $5. Our bill will close this loophole by allowing the SEC to suspend or bar individuals who have committed serious penny stock fraud from participating in both the penny stock and micro-cap securities markets either as registered brokers or in related positions, such as promoters. Fourth, our proposal will expand the statutory officer and director bar to include all publicly traded companies. Current law applies only to companies that report to the SEC, leaving the door open for violators to serve as officers or directors of all other companies. Our proposal would extend the bar to include all publicly traded businesses, including ``Pink Sheet'' or Over The Counter (``OTC'') Bulletin Board companies, which are often the vehicles for micro-cap fraud schemes. Finally, our bill will strengthen the SEC's ability to take enforcement actions against repeat violators. Currently, the SEC must request that the Justice Department initiate criminal contempt proceedings against individuals who violate SEC orders or court injunctions, which can be a very burdensome and timely process. Our legislation would allow the SEC to seek immediate civil penalties for repeat violators without the need to file criminal contempt proceedings. Our Nation is blessed with the strongest and safest security markets in the world. This is a tribute to both the industry and its regulators. Unfortunately, as our markets bring benefits to more and more Americans, they also attract those who would exploit unsuspecting investors through manipulative practices. By virtue of their small size and relative obscurity, microcap securities are the most susceptible to manipulation. By giving the SEC the tools it needs to combat this fraud, this legislation will benefit not only individual investors, but also the vast majority of legitimate small businesses who contribute so much to our Nation's growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999 which will equip Federal law enforcement authorities with new tools to prosecute the fight against microcap securities fraud that costs unwary investors an estimated $6 billion annually. While cold-calling families at dinnertime and high-pressure sales remain a favorite tactic of microcap con artists, the Internet is providing a new and inviting frontier for the commission of microcap frauds. I find it particularly disturbing that despite the best efforts of regulatory authorities, microcap scam artists often commit repeat offenses. Similarly, under current law, persons barred from other segments of the financial industry, such as banking or insurance, can easily bring their deceptive practices into our securities markets. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of two of my distinguished colleagues in introducing this important legislation. Senator Cleland and Senator Gregg are united with me in a commitment to ensure that security regulators have the necessary authority to crack down on securities fraud. Senator Cleland has a longstanding interest in protecting investors from securities scams. Senator Gregg also has been a leader in this arena in his position as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the SEC's budgets. In drafting this legislation, I was also pleased to have the invaluable assistance of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association which represents State securities regulators. In fact, Richard H. Walker, the SEC's Director of Enforcement, and Peter C. Hildreth, the President of NASAA, have submitted letters endorsing my legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my statement.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Home Health Care: Will the New Payment System & Regulatory Overkill Hurt Our Seniors?'' This Subcommittee hearing will focus on how the new Medicare Interim Payment System and new regulatory requirements from the Health Care Financing Administration may limit the access of beneficiaries most in need of home health services. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Lee Blalack of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721. committee on energy and natural resources

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the majority leader's amendment to the defense authorization bill. The amendment takes important steps to improve the monitoring of the export of advanced U.S. satellite technology and to strengthen security and counterintelligence measures at Department of Energy facilities. As a Senator, I have been privy to a wide range of classified and unclassified information relating to efforts by the People's Republic of China to acquire our sensitive technology and influence our political process. As a United States citizen, I am gravely concerned. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I learned during the campaign finance investigation ably lead by Chairman Thompson that China developed and implemented a plan to influence U.S. politicians and elections. And from Charlie Trie and John Huang, both of whom have recently plead to felony offenses and agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department, I suspect we could learn more. More recently, I reviewed the Cox report, and just yesterday, listened to testimony concerning the report during a hearing of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. The evidence is clear that China stole very sensitive military secrets involving virtually all of our nuclear weapons. What is more, I believe that the lax security at our government labs is completely inexcusable as is the Clinton Administration's abject failure to take swift and strong action when it became aware of evidence of serious breaches in our national security. This administration is faced now with the opportunity to focus the country on constructive solutions to our problems concerning espionage and undue foreign influence. I fear, however, that we will be mired for a long time to come in the details of what happened, because those who know will not tell. Instead of a swift accounting of what went wrong, I am afraid we can expect the stonewalling and lack of cooperation we received during the campaign finance inquiry. Yet there are things Congress can do now to improve security at our national labs, and the majority leader's amendment is one of them. The Amendment increases the exchange of information between the Administration and the Congress and requires changes at the Departments of State, Energy, Defense as well as other intelligence agencies. These changes will help strengthen security checks, licensing procedures, and access to classified information. I am hopeful that these provisions will enhance the security and protection of our most vital technological secrets and ensure that if violations do occur, swift and decisive action is taken to correct them. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. bqm-74 target drone procurement

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will give consumers important information many will want to factor into their decisions when they shop for a new vehicle. My legislation will ensure that consumers have the information they need to compare the pollution emissions of new vehicles. The Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act of 1999 simply takes data already collected by the Environmental Protection Agency and requires that this information be presented to consumers in an understandable format as they purchase cars. This proposal, if enacted into law, will benefit both the consumer and the environment. This measure is modeled after existing requirements for gas mileage information. It ensures that emissions information will be on the window stickers of new cars just as fuel efficiency information is currently displayed. Additionally, emissions information for all new vehicles will be published by the EPA in an easy-to-understand booklet for consumers. This information is already collected by the EPA, but is disseminated in an extremely burdensome way. First, consumers must pro-actively request emissions information. Then, after securing the relevant EPA documents, the consumer is presented with an overload of complicated data in spreadsheet form. Furthermore, the EPA organizes emissions data by engine type and not by the more commonly compared model and make categories. Let me refer to a page from the EPA's 1999 Annual Certification Test Results of emission standards. As my colleagues can see, it is an extraordinarily difficult document to read and interpret. The complicated nature of this document becomes increasingly apparent when this table is compared with the simplified information currently provided to consumers about fuel mileage. The federal government should be aiding consumers who want to consider emissions in choosing which vehicle to purchase. This bill will do just that. Mr. President, this is not a new idea. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 mandated that the EPA make available to the public the data collected from manufacturers on emissions. The 1970 Amendments further required, ``Such results shall be described in such nontechnical manner as will responsibly disclose to prospective ultimate purchasers of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines the comparative performance of the vehicles and engines tested.'' Mr. President, clearly, the EPA is not abiding by the letter and spirit of the 1970 law. It is important to note that the Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act of 1999 does not require either motor vehicle manufacturers or the EPA to conduct new tests. Manufacturers must already test emissions of all new vehicles and submit the test results to the EPA. Unfortunately, the gathering of this information does not translate into useful information for consumers. While all vehicles must meet the Federal standards, some vehicles exceed the standards. Consumers who are concerned about vehicle emissions deserve to be able to exercise their right to buy from manufacturers who take extra steps in reducing emissions, if they so chose. Representative Brian Bilbray of California is introducing this bill in the House of Representatives today. I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue and his bringing this common-sense proposal to my attention. He is clearly committed to protecting both consumers and the environment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting the Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act, and I ask unanimous consent that one page from the EPA's 1999 Annual Certification Test Results of emissions standards be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will give consumers important information many will want to factor into their decisions when they shop for a new vehicle. My legislation will ensure that consumers have the information they need to compare the pollution emissions of new vehicles. The Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act of 1999 simply takes data already collected by the Environmental Protection Agency and requires that this information be presented to consumers in an understandable format as they purchase cars. This proposal, if enacted into law, will benefit both the consumer and the environment. This measure is modeled after existing requirements for gas mileage information. It ensures that emissions information will be on the window stickers of new cars just as fuel efficiency information is currently displayed. Additionally, emissions information for all new vehicles will be published by the EPA in an easy-to-understand booklet for consumers. This information is already collected by the EPA, but is disseminated in an extremely burdensome way. First, consumers must pro-actively request emissions information. Then, after securing the relevant EPA documents, the consumer is presented with an overload of complicated data in spreadsheet form. Furthermore, the EPA organizes emissions data by engine type and not by the more commonly compared model and make categories. Let me refer to a page from the EPA's 1999 Annual Certification Test Results of emission standards. As my colleagues can see, it is an extraordinarily difficult document to read and interpret. The complicated nature of this document becomes increasingly apparent when this table is compared with the simplified information currently provided to consumers about fuel mileage. The federal government should be aiding consumers who want to consider emissions in choosing which vehicle to purchase. This bill will do just that. Mr. President, this is not a new idea. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 mandated that the EPA make available to the public the data collected from manufacturers on emissions. The 1970 Amendments further required, ``Such results shall be described in such nontechnical manner as will responsibly disclose to prospective ultimate purchasers of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines the comparative performance of the vehicles and engines tested.'' Mr. President, clearly, the EPA is not abiding by the letter and spirit of the 1970 law. It is important to note that the Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act of 1999 does not require either motor vehicle manufacturers or the EPA to conduct new tests. Manufacturers must already test emissions of all new vehicles and submit the test results to the EPA. Unfortunately, the gathering of this information does not translate into useful information for consumers. While all vehicles must meet the Federal standards, some vehicles exceed the standards. Consumers who are concerned about vehicle emissions deserve to be able to exercise their right to buy from manufacturers who take extra steps in reducing emissions, if they so chose. Representative Brian Bilbray of California is introducing this bill in the House of Representatives today. I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue and his bringing this common-sense proposal to my attention. He is clearly committed to protecting both consumers and the environment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting the Automobile Emissions Consumer Information Act, and I ask unanimous consent that one page from the EPA's 1999 Annual Certification Test Results of emissions standards be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Coverdell and I are introducing two bills that will help teachers who spend their personal funds in order to improve their teaching skills and to provide quality learning materials for their students. I am going to discuss the first of those bills, the Teachers' Professional Development Act. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, in presenting this response to the critical need of our elementary and secondary schoolteachers for more professional development. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the most important element of student success. Educational researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the close relationship between well-qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, teachers themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and expanding their level of competence. When I meet with Maine teachers, they tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthwhile pursuit. In Maine, we have seen the results of a strong, sustained professional development program on student achievement in science and math. With support from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the State of Maine, private foundations, the business community, and colleges in our State, the Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance established a statewide training program for teachers. The results have been outstanding. While American students, overall, performed at the bottom of the Third International Science and Mathematics Study, Maine students outperformed the students of all but one of the 41 participating nations. The professional development available to Maine's science and math teachers undoubtedly played a critical role in this tremendous success story. Unfortunately, however, this level of support for professional development is the exception and not the rule. The willingness of Maine's teachers to fund their own professional development activities has impressed me deeply. For example, an English teacher who serves as a member of my Educational Policy Advisory Committee told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She then came back to her high school and shared the results of this curriculum conference with all the other teachers in her English department. She is typical of the many teachers throughout the United States who generously reach within their own pockets to pay for their own professional development to make them even better, even more effective at their jobs. I firmly believe that we should encourage our educators to seek professional training, and that is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. The Collins-Coverdell legislation would help teachers to finance professional development by allowing them to deduct from their taxable income such expenses as conference fees, tuitions, books, supplies, and transportation associated with qualifying programs. Under the current law, teachers may only deduct these expenses if they exceed 2 percent of their income. My bill would eliminate this 2 percent floor and allow all of the professional development expenses to be deductible. I greatly admire the many teachers who have voluntarily financed the additional education they need to improve their skills and to serve their students better. I hope that this legislation will encourage teachers to continue to take courses in the subject areas that they teach, to complete graduate degrees in either their subject area or in education, and to attend conferences to get new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. This bill would reimburse our teachers for a very small part of what they invest in our children's future. This would be money well spent. Investing in education is the surest way for us to build one of our most important assets for our country's future, and that is a well- educated population. We need to ensure that our nation's elementary and secondary school teachers are the best possible so that they can bring out the best in our students. Adopting this legislation would help us to accomplish this goal. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in assuring enactment of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Coverdell and I are introducing two bills that will help teachers who spend their personal funds in order to improve their teaching skills and to provide quality learning materials for their students. I am going to discuss the first of those bills, the Teachers' Professional Development Act. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, in presenting this response to the critical need of our elementary and secondary schoolteachers for more professional development. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the most important element of student success. Educational researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the close relationship between well-qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, teachers themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and expanding their level of competence. When I meet with Maine teachers, they tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthwhile pursuit. In Maine, we have seen the results of a strong, sustained professional development program on student achievement in science and math. With support from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the State of Maine, private foundations, the business community, and colleges in our State, the Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance established a statewide training program for teachers. The results have been outstanding. While American students, overall, performed at the bottom of the Third International Science and Mathematics Study, Maine students outperformed the students of all but one of the 41 participating nations. The professional development available to Maine's science and math teachers undoubtedly played a critical role in this tremendous success story. Unfortunately, however, this level of support for professional development is the exception and not the rule. The willingness of Maine's teachers to fund their own professional development activities has impressed me deeply. For example, an English teacher who serves as a member of my Educational Policy Advisory Committee told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She then came back to her high school and shared the results of this curriculum conference with all the other teachers in her English department. She is typical of the many teachers throughout the United States who generously reach within their own pockets to pay for their own professional development to make them even better, even more effective at their jobs. I firmly believe that we should encourage our educators to seek professional training, and that is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. The Collins-Coverdell legislation would help teachers to finance professional development by allowing them to deduct from their taxable income such expenses as conference fees, tuitions, books, supplies, and transportation associated with qualifying programs. Under the current law, teachers may only deduct these expenses if they exceed 2 percent of their income. My bill would eliminate this 2 percent floor and allow all of the professional development expenses to be deductible. I greatly admire the many teachers who have voluntarily financed the additional education they need to improve their skills and to serve their students better. I hope that this legislation will encourage teachers to continue to take courses in the subject areas that they teach, to complete graduate degrees in either their subject area or in education, and to attend conferences to get new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. This bill would reimburse our teachers for a very small part of what they invest in our children's future. This would be money well spent. Investing in education is the surest way for us to build one of our most important assets for our country's future, and that is a well- educated population. We need to ensure that our nation's elementary and secondary school teachers are the best possible so that they can bring out the best in our students. Adopting this legislation would help us to accomplish this goal. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in assuring enactment of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, food safety is a serious and growing public health concern. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), as many as 81 million cases of foodborne illness and 9,000 related deaths occur in the U.S. every year. Most at risk are the very old, the very young, and the very ill. While these statistics refer to all cases of foodborne illness, recent outbreaks demonstrate that tainted imported foods have increased the incidence of illness and have exposed American consumers to new pathogens. The volume of imported foods continues to grow, yet our current food import system is riddled with holes which allow unsafe food to penetrate our borders. Contaminated food imports have caused illnesses rarely seen in the United States and can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to detect. I first became interested in this issue when I learned that fruit from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illesses--one of hepatitis A and two of Cyclospora infection--that sickened thousands of Americans. These outbreaks included victims in my home State of Maine. In my State's grocery stores, as in any typical American grocery store, the fresh fruit and vegetables that are available during the winter months come from many other countries. In many ways, imported food is a blessing for American consumers. Fruit and vegetables that would normally be unavailable in our local grocery stores during the winter months are now available all year long, making it easier and more enjoyable to eat the five servings of fruit and vegetables a day the National Cancer Institute recommends. But, it's only a blessing if the food is safe. Even one serving of tainted food can cause sickness and even death. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that the increasing importation of produce is a trend that is expected to continue. In 1996, the U.S. imported $7.2 billion worth of fruit and vegetables from at least 90 different countries, a dramatic increase from the 1990 level of $4.8 billion. Total food imports have increased from 1.1 million shipments in 1992 to 2.7 million in 1997. And, of all the fish and shellfish consumed in the U.S., more than half is imported. Yet, the FDA annually inspects less than 2 percent of the 2.7 million shipments of food that arrive in the U.S. And of the small number of shipments that are inspected, only about a third are tested for some of the most significant pathogens. What's more, even when the FDA does catch contaminated food, the system often fails to dispose of it adequately. Indeed, according to one survey conducted by the Customs Service in 1997, as many as 70 percent of the imported food shipments the FDA ordered re-exported or destroyed may have ended up in U.S. commerce any way. Unscrupulous food importers can easily circumvent the inspection system. Mr. President, to respond to these problems, I am introducing the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act, with Senator Frist, Senator Abraham, Senator Coverdell, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Snowe as original cosponsors. Our legislation is an effort designed to strengthen the existing food import system to help ensure that unsafe food does not enter the United States. Our goal is to reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses and to ensure that American families can enjoy a variety of foods year- round without the risk of illness when they sit down to the dinner table. This legislation is the product of an extensive investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee undertook a 16-month, in-depth investigation into the safety of food imports. During five days of Subcommittee hearings, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including scientists, industry and consumer representatives, government officials, the General Accounting Office, and two persons with first- hand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry, a convicted Customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. As a result of the compelling testimony that we heard, I have worked with my colleagues in drafting the legislation we introduce today--the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act--to address a broad array of problems uncovered during the Subcommittee's investigation. My Subcommittee's investigation has revealed much about the food we import into this country and the government's flawed food safety net. Let me briefly recount some of our findings which make it clear why this legislation is so urgently needed: In the worlds of the GAO, ``federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported food are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Federal agencies have not effectively targeted their resources on imported foods posing the greatest risks; Weaknesses in FDA import controls, specifically the ability of importers to control the food shipments from the port to the point of distribution, makes the system vulnerable to fraud and deception; The bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety laws are so low that they are considered by some unscrupulous importers at the cost of doing business; Maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown foodborne pathogens, like Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect; Because some imported food can be contaminated by organisms that cannot be detected by visual inspection or laboratory tests, placing additional federal inspectors at ports-of-entry alone will not protect Americans from unsafe food imports; and Since contamination of imported food can occur at many different places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace-back outbreaks of foodborne illnesses to the source of contamination is a complex process that requires a more coordinated effort among the federal, state, and local agencies as well as improved education for health care providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne illnesses. The testimony that I heard during my Subcommittee's hearings was troubling. The United States Customs Service told us of one particularly egregious situation that I would like to share. It involves contaminated fish and illustrates the challenges facing federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply. In 1996, federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles. The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth. Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish had been inspected before by federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact, it had arrived at our border two years before, and had been rejected by the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten shipment for two years before attempting to bring it into the country again, by a different route. The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community service. I suppose we should be thankful that the perpetrators were caught and held responsible. After all, the unsafe food might have escaped detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the small amount of money currently required for the Custom's bond, which importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish that is two years old past overworked Customs agents. All too often, unscrupulous importers are never discovered. The General Accounting Office testified about a special operation known as Operation Bad Apple, conducted by Customs at the Port of San Francisco in 1997, identified 23 weaknesses in the controls over FDA-regulated imported food. For example, under current law, importers retain custody of their shipments from the time they arrive at the border. The importers must also put up a bond and agree to ``redeliver'' the shipment to Customs, for reexport or destruction, if ordered to do so or forfeit the bond. However, Operation Bad Apple revealed a very disturbing fact. Of the shipments found to violate U.S. standards, thereby requiring redelivery to Customs for destruction or re-export, a full 40 percent were never returned. The Customs Service believes an additional 30 percent of shipments that the FDA required to be returned contained good products that the importers had substituted for the original bad products. Customs further believes that the violative products were on their way to the marketplace. This means that a total of 70 percent of products ordered returned, because they were unsafe, presumably entered into U.S. commerce. Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent. After all, FDA only physically inspects about 17 of every 1,000 food shipments and, of the food inspected, only about a third is actually tested. That is why we have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to ensure that our legislation addresses many of the issues explored over the course of the Subcommittee's investigation and hearings. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish. Our legislation will fill the existing gaps in the food import system and provide the FDA with certain stronger authority to protect American consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our country. This authority allows the FDA to deny the entry of imported food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, and is likely without systemic changes to cause disease again. Second, this legislation includes the authority for the FDA to require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior to their release into commerce, to prohibit the practice of ``port- shopping,'' and to mark boxes containing violative foods as ``U.S.-- Refused Entry.'' This latter authority, which would allow the FDA to clearly mark boxes containing contaminated foods, is currently used with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and has been requested specifically by the FDA. Our bill also will require the destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately reconditioned to ensure safety. Third, the legislation directs the FDA to develop criteria for use by private laboratories used to collect and analyze samples of food offered for import. This will ensure the integrity of the testing process. Fourth, the bill will give ``teeth'' to the current food import system by establishing two strong deterrents--the threats of high bonds and of debarment--for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to profit from endangering the health of American consumers. Finally, our bill will authorize the CDC to award grants to state and local public health agencies to strengthen the public health infrastructure by updating essential items such as laboratory and electronic-reporting equipment. Grants will also be available for universities to develop new and improved tests to detect pathogens and for professional schools and professional societies to develop programs to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among healthcare providers and the public. We believe the measures provided for in this legislation will help to curtail the risks that unsafe food imports currently pose to our citizens, particularly our elderly, our children and our sick. I appreciate the advice and input we have received from scientists, industry and consumer groups, and the FDA, the CDC and the U.S. Customs Service in drafting this legislation. We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is one of the safest in the world. But, our system for safeguarding our people from tainted food imports is flawed and poses needless risks of serious foodborne illnesses. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to provide our federal agencies with the direction, authority, and resources necessary to keep unsafe food out of the United States and off American dinner tables.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, food safety is a serious and growing public health concern. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), as many as 81 million cases of foodborne illness and 9,000 related deaths occur in the U.S. every year. Most at risk are the very old, the very young, and the very ill. While these statistics refer to all cases of foodborne illness, recent outbreaks demonstrate that tainted imported foods have increased the incidence of illness and have exposed American consumers to new pathogens. The volume of imported foods continues to grow, yet our current food import system is riddled with holes which allow unsafe food to penetrate our borders. Contaminated food imports have caused illnesses rarely seen in the United States and can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to detect. I first became interested in this issue when I learned that fruit from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illesses--one of hepatitis A and two of Cyclospora infection--that sickened thousands of Americans. These outbreaks included victims in my home State of Maine. In my State's grocery stores, as in any typical American grocery store, the fresh fruit and vegetables that are available during the winter months come from many other countries. In many ways, imported food is a blessing for American consumers. Fruit and vegetables that would normally be unavailable in our local grocery stores during the winter months are now available all year long, making it easier and more enjoyable to eat the five servings of fruit and vegetables a day the National Cancer Institute recommends. But, it's only a blessing if the food is safe. Even one serving of tainted food can cause sickness and even death. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that the increasing importation of produce is a trend that is expected to continue. In 1996, the U.S. imported $7.2 billion worth of fruit and vegetables from at least 90 different countries, a dramatic increase from the 1990 level of $4.8 billion. Total food imports have increased from 1.1 million shipments in 1992 to 2.7 million in 1997. And, of all the fish and shellfish consumed in the U.S., more than half is imported. Yet, the FDA annually inspects less than 2 percent of the 2.7 million shipments of food that arrive in the U.S. And of the small number of shipments that are inspected, only about a third are tested for some of the most significant pathogens. What's more, even when the FDA does catch contaminated food, the system often fails to dispose of it adequately. Indeed, according to one survey conducted by the Customs Service in 1997, as many as 70 percent of the imported food shipments the FDA ordered re-exported or destroyed may have ended up in U.S. commerce any way. Unscrupulous food importers can easily circumvent the inspection system. Mr. President, to respond to these problems, I am introducing the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act, with Senator Frist, Senator Abraham, Senator Coverdell, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Snowe as original cosponsors. Our legislation is an effort designed to strengthen the existing food import system to help ensure that unsafe food does not enter the United States. Our goal is to reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses and to ensure that American families can enjoy a variety of foods year- round without the risk of illness when they sit down to the dinner table. This legislation is the product of an extensive investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee undertook a 16-month, in-depth investigation into the safety of food imports. During five days of Subcommittee hearings, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including scientists, industry and consumer representatives, government officials, the General Accounting Office, and two persons with first- hand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry, a convicted Customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. As a result of the compelling testimony that we heard, I have worked with my colleagues in drafting the legislation we introduce today--the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act--to address a broad array of problems uncovered during the Subcommittee's investigation. My Subcommittee's investigation has revealed much about the food we import into this country and the government's flawed food safety net. Let me briefly recount some of our findings which make it clear why this legislation is so urgently needed: In the worlds of the GAO, ``federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported food are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Federal agencies have not effectively targeted their resources on imported foods posing the greatest risks; Weaknesses in FDA import controls, specifically the ability of importers to control the food shipments from the port to the point of distribution, makes the system vulnerable to fraud and deception; The bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety laws are so low that they are considered by some unscrupulous importers at the cost of doing business; Maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown foodborne pathogens, like Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect; Because some imported food can be contaminated by organisms that cannot be detected by visual inspection or laboratory tests, placing additional federal inspectors at ports-of-entry alone will not protect Americans from unsafe food imports; and Since contamination of imported food can occur at many different places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace-back outbreaks of foodborne illnesses to the source of contamination is a complex process that requires a more coordinated effort among the federal, state, and local agencies as well as improved education for health care providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne illnesses. The testimony that I heard during my Subcommittee's hearings was troubling. The United States Customs Service told us of one particularly egregious situation that I would like to share. It involves contaminated fish and illustrates the challenges facing federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply. In 1996, federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles. The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth. Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish had been inspected before by federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact, it had arrived at our border two years before, and had been rejected by the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten shipment for two years before attempting to bring it into the country again, by a different route. The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community service. I suppose we should be thankful that the perpetrators were caught and held responsible. After all, the unsafe food might have escaped detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the small amount of money currently required for the Custom's bond, which importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish that is two years old past overworked Customs agents. All too often, unscrupulous importers are never discovered. The General Accounting Office testified about a special operation known as Operation Bad Apple, conducted by Customs at the Port of San Francisco in 1997, identified 23 weaknesses in the controls over FDA-regulated imported food. For example, under current law, importers retain custody of their shipments from the time they arrive at the border. The importers must also put up a bond and agree to ``redeliver'' the shipment to Customs, for reexport or destruction, if ordered to do so or forfeit the bond. However, Operation Bad Apple revealed a very disturbing fact. Of the shipments found to violate U.S. standards, thereby requiring redelivery to Customs for destruction or re-export, a full 40 percent were never returned. The Customs Service believes an additional 30 percent of shipments that the FDA required to be returned contained good products that the importers had substituted for the original bad products. Customs further believes that the violative products were on their way to the marketplace. This means that a total of 70 percent of products ordered returned, because they were unsafe, presumably entered into U.S. commerce. Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent. After all, FDA only physically inspects about 17 of every 1,000 food shipments and, of the food inspected, only about a third is actually tested. That is why we have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to ensure that our legislation addresses many of the issues explored over the course of the Subcommittee's investigation and hearings. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish. Our legislation will fill the existing gaps in the food import system and provide the FDA with certain stronger authority to protect American consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our country. This authority allows the FDA to deny the entry of imported food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, and is likely without systemic changes to cause disease again. Second, this legislation includes the authority for the FDA to require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior to their release into commerce, to prohibit the practice of ``port- shopping,'' and to mark boxes containing violative foods as ``U.S.-- Refused Entry.'' This latter authority, which would allow the FDA to clearly mark boxes containing contaminated foods, is currently used with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and has been requested specifically by the FDA. Our bill also will require the destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately reconditioned to ensure safety. Third, the legislation directs the FDA to develop criteria for use by private laboratories used to collect and analyze samples of food offered for import. This will ensure the integrity of the testing process. Fourth, the bill will give ``teeth'' to the current food import system by establishing two strong deterrents--the threats of high bonds and of debarment--for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to profit from endangering the health of American consumers. Finally, our bill will authorize the CDC to award grants to state and local public health agencies to strengthen the public health infrastructure by updating essential items such as laboratory and electronic-reporting equipment. Grants will also be available for universities to develop new and improved tests to detect pathogens and for professional schools and professional societies to develop programs to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among healthcare providers and the public. We believe the measures provided for in this legislation will help to curtail the risks that unsafe food imports currently pose to our citizens, particularly our elderly, our children and our sick. I appreciate the advice and input we have received from scientists, industry and consumer groups, and the FDA, the CDC and the U.S. Customs Service in drafting this legislation. We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is one of the safest in the world. But, our system for safeguarding our people from tainted food imports is flawed and poses needless risks of serious foodborne illnesses. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to provide our federal agencies with the direction, authority, and resources necessary to keep unsafe food out of the United States and off American dinner tables.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a technical correction to a provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that is causing great unfairness to long-established home health agencies and their patients. It would provide for a special rule for long-existing home health agencies that have been classified as ``new'' home health agencies for purposes of the Interim Payment System (IPS) simply because they happened to change the ending date of their fiscal year, and, as a consequence, do not have a full 12-month cost reporting period in federal fiscal year 1994. Under the complicated formula for the Medicare Interim Payment System for home health agencies, Medicare determines a limit for most established agencies using a formula that recognizes the agency's historical costs and blends them, in a proportion of 75 percent to 25 percent, with regional norms. For new home health agencies without a historic record of cost reports, the per-beneficiary limit is set at the national median. In defining the difference between new and existing agencies, the Administration focused on fiscal year 1994 and established a general rule that the national median per-beneficiary limit would apply to ``new providers and providers without a 12-month reporting period ending in fiscal year 1994.'' Congress did, however, specifically exclude from the ``new'' category any home health agency that had changed its name or corporate structure. Nevertheless, one of the home health agencies in my State --Hancock County HomeCare--has been classified as a ``new'' home health agency, even though it has been serving the people of rural Down East Maine for more than 60 years. I am sure that there are other long-standing home health agencies across the country that have found themselves in a similar situation as a consequence of this provision. Hancock County HomeCare is a division of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital, a charitable, tax-exempt hospital. Hancock County HomeCare emerged as a result of a merger of the hospital with the Four Town Nursing Service and Bar Harbor Public Health Nursing, both non-profit home health agencies that have provided uninterrupted service to residents of Hancock County, Maine for more than 60 years. The unified agency, which provides skilled home nursing and therapies to residents of 36 towns, has been part of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital since 1981. Despite its 60-year history of service to the community, Hancock County HomeCare has been classified as a ``new'' agency simply because it happened to change the ending date of its fiscal year during 1994, when Blue Hill Memorial and its affiliate changed theirs. Solely because it changed its fiscal year from a period ending June 30 to a period ending March 31, this 60-year old agency is being treated as a new agency by HCFA. Given the care taken by Congress to exclude name changes and corporate structure changes from the definition of a ``new'' agency, I simply do not believe that it was our intent to visit radically different treatment upon an agency that simply changed its financial reporting practices, but otherwise has a continuous history of operation and is fully able to provide 12 months of reliable data in accordance with Medicare cost reporting requirements. I believe that the statute gives the Health Care Financing Administration sufficient discretion to deal with this situation administratively. Unfortunately, however, HCFA does not agree with that interpretation and insists that further legislative action is necessary if Hancock County HomeCare is to be considered an ``old'' agency for purposes of the Interim Payment System. The legislation that I am introducing today to clarify the law was prepared with technical assistance from HCFA. Essentially, the bill would provide for a special rule for home care agencies that were in existence and had an active Medicare provider number prior to fiscal year 1980, but which had less than a 12-month cost reporting period in fiscal year 1994 because the agency changed the end date of its cost reporting period in that year. For these agencies, Medicare could, upon the request of the agency, use the agency's partial-year cost report from fiscal year 1994 to determine the agency-specific portion of the per beneficiary limit. As a consequence, the agency could then be treated as an ``old'' agency for purposes of the Interim Payment System. Mr. President, this legislation is simply a technical correction to address a specific problem that Congress clearly did not intend to create when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The legislation is narrowly drafted and, in all likelihood, will not affect more than a few home health agencies, but it will make a critical difference in the ability of those agencies to continue to serve their elderly clients. Home health agencies across the country, however, are experiencing acute financial problems due to other problems with a critically-flawed payment system that effectively penalizes our most cost-efficient agencies. These agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with cash-flow problems, which inhibit their ability to deliver much- needed care. As many as twenty organizations in Maine have either closed or are no longer providing home care services because their reimbursement levels under Medicare fell so far short of their actual operating costs. Other agencies are laying off staff or are declining to accept new patients with more serious health problems. The real losers in this situation are our seniors, since cuts of this magnitude cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting patient care. Moreover, these payment problems have been exacerbated by a number of new regulatory requirements imposed by HCFA, including the implementation of OASIS, sequential billing, medical review, and IPS overpayment recoupment. I will soon be introducing legislation to provide some relief for these beleaguered home health agencies and also plan to hold a hearing next month in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to examine the combined effect that these payment reductions coupled with the multiple new regulatory requirements have had on home health agencies' ability to meet their patients' needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation providing a special rule for long-existing home health agencies with partial fiscal year 1994 cost reports be included in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a technical correction to a provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that is causing great unfairness to long-established home health agencies and their patients. It would provide for a special rule for long-existing home health agencies that have been classified as ``new'' home health agencies for purposes of the Interim Payment System (IPS) simply because they happened to change the ending date of their fiscal year, and, as a consequence, do not have a full 12-month cost reporting period in federal fiscal year 1994. Under the complicated formula for the Medicare Interim Payment System for home health agencies, Medicare determines a limit for most established agencies using a formula that recognizes the agency's historical costs and blends them, in a proportion of 75 percent to 25 percent, with regional norms. For new home health agencies without a historic record of cost reports, the per-beneficiary limit is set at the national median. In defining the difference between new and existing agencies, the Administration focused on fiscal year 1994 and established a general rule that the national median per-beneficiary limit would apply to ``new providers and providers without a 12-month reporting period ending in fiscal year 1994.'' Congress did, however, specifically exclude from the ``new'' category any home health agency that had changed its name or corporate structure. Nevertheless, one of the home health agencies in my State --Hancock County HomeCare--has been classified as a ``new'' home health agency, even though it has been serving the people of rural Down East Maine for more than 60 years. I am sure that there are other long-standing home health agencies across the country that have found themselves in a similar situation as a consequence of this provision. Hancock County HomeCare is a division of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital, a charitable, tax-exempt hospital. Hancock County HomeCare emerged as a result of a merger of the hospital with the Four Town Nursing Service and Bar Harbor Public Health Nursing, both non-profit home health agencies that have provided uninterrupted service to residents of Hancock County, Maine for more than 60 years. The unified agency, which provides skilled home nursing and therapies to residents of 36 towns, has been part of Blue Hill Memorial Hospital since 1981. Despite its 60-year history of service to the community, Hancock County HomeCare has been classified as a ``new'' agency simply because it happened to change the ending date of its fiscal year during 1994, when Blue Hill Memorial and its affiliate changed theirs. Solely because it changed its fiscal year from a period ending June 30 to a period ending March 31, this 60-year old agency is being treated as a new agency by HCFA. Given the care taken by Congress to exclude name changes and corporate structure changes from the definition of a ``new'' agency, I simply do not believe that it was our intent to visit radically different treatment upon an agency that simply changed its financial reporting practices, but otherwise has a continuous history of operation and is fully able to provide 12 months of reliable data in accordance with Medicare cost reporting requirements. I believe that the statute gives the Health Care Financing Administration sufficient discretion to deal with this situation administratively. Unfortunately, however, HCFA does not agree with that interpretation and insists that further legislative action is necessary if Hancock County HomeCare is to be considered an ``old'' agency for purposes of the Interim Payment System. The legislation that I am introducing today to clarify the law was prepared with technical assistance from HCFA. Essentially, the bill would provide for a special rule for home care agencies that were in existence and had an active Medicare provider number prior to fiscal year 1980, but which had less than a 12-month cost reporting period in fiscal year 1994 because the agency changed the end date of its cost reporting period in that year. For these agencies, Medicare could, upon the request of the agency, use the agency's partial-year cost report from fiscal year 1994 to determine the agency-specific portion of the per beneficiary limit. As a consequence, the agency could then be treated as an ``old'' agency for purposes of the Interim Payment System. Mr. President, this legislation is simply a technical correction to address a specific problem that Congress clearly did not intend to create when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The legislation is narrowly drafted and, in all likelihood, will not affect more than a few home health agencies, but it will make a critical difference in the ability of those agencies to continue to serve their elderly clients. Home health agencies across the country, however, are experiencing acute financial problems due to other problems with a critically-flawed payment system that effectively penalizes our most cost-efficient agencies. These agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with cash-flow problems, which inhibit their ability to deliver much- needed care. As many as twenty organizations in Maine have either closed or are no longer providing home care services because their reimbursement levels under Medicare fell so far short of their actual operating costs. Other agencies are laying off staff or are declining to accept new patients with more serious health problems. The real losers in this situation are our seniors, since cuts of this magnitude cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting patient care. Moreover, these payment problems have been exacerbated by a number of new regulatory requirements imposed by HCFA, including the implementation of OASIS, sequential billing, medical review, and IPS overpayment recoupment. I will soon be introducing legislation to provide some relief for these beleaguered home health agencies and also plan to hold a hearing next month in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to examine the combined effect that these payment reductions coupled with the multiple new regulatory requirements have had on home health agencies' ability to meet their patients' needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation providing a special rule for long-existing home health agencies with partial fiscal year 1994 cost reports be included in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Savings for Scholars Act, to help families save for college expenses. This bill would make education IRAs and State tuition plans more effective vehicles for families to use in saving for postsecondary education. I want to thank Senator Roth and his staff on the Finance Committee for working with me and my staff in drafting this legislation. In the 3 years that he has chaired the Finance Committee, Senator Roth has been a true champion for all of us who place a tremendous value on educating our nation's children and young adults. When Congress created the education IRA 2 years ago, we took an important first step in the direction of encouraging families to save for their children's education. But, the law contains a very significant limitation--families cannot contribute more than $500 a year to these accounts. This restriction makes it difficult for a family to accumulate savings sufficient to pay the cost of a college degree. Even if parents start saving from the time their child is born, an investment in an education IRA of $500 a year, assuming an average annual return of 8 percent, will only yield about $19,000 when that child begins higher education. Today, the average cost of 4 years of higher education is about $30,000 at a public institution and about $75,000 at a private school. In short, the current limits are not nearly high enough to finance even today's college costs, much less the cost 18 years from now. Raising the maximum contribution to $2,000 will allow a family to accumulate at least as much as the current average cost of attending a private school. This is money that many middle-class families and their children otherwise would need to borrow; it is tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that would burden graduates with a mountain of debt. Most important, raising the education IRA contribution limit would make a 4-year college education more accessible and less of a financial challenge for middle-income families. In addition to increasing the education IRA contribution limit, this bill would make a technical change to remove a confusing inconsistently between the education IRA and the traditional IRA. The last date on which a contribution to an education IRA can be made is December 31 of any year. Traditional IRAs may receive contributions until April 15 of the year following the tax year. This bill changes the deadline for contributions to education IRAs to coincide with that of the traditional IRA. This modest change would eliminate a source of confusion that might cause a family planning to contribute to a child's IRA to inadvertently miss the deadline. The second part of my bill deals with qualified State tuition plans. These are tax-deferred plans, administered by the individual states, that allow families to prepay college tuition or to accumulate tax- deferred savings for postsecondary education expenses. My bill makes two changes in the requirements of these plans that should make them more flexible and useful to families. The first is to require that all qualified State tuition plans allow at least three rollovers without any change in beneficiary. This change would guarantee that participants in one state's plan can transfer their assets to another state's plan. The need for this could be the result of a family moving from one state to another or of a change in a child's education plans. My bill will give greater flexibility in the choice of postsecondary education institutions to the beneficiaries of these plans. The bill also proposes one additional change to the qualified tuition programs--a change that will make the plans more attractive to families. Under current law, the assets of a plan can be rolled over to specified members of a beneficiary's family. This allows the plan's assets to be used by a sibling if the original beneficiary cannot or does not use the plan. However, the definition of a family member does not include first cousins. Thus, a parent of a single child could not transfer the benefits to a niece or nephew if his or her child did not use the plan. Perhaps more significantly, this change would make the qualified state tuition plan more desirable for grandparents. They could be assured that a plan established for the benefit of one grandchild could be transferred to any of their grandchildren. The final part of this bill corrects an unfair consequence of the interaction between the HOPE tax credits and the education IRA. Currently, a taxpayer is prohibited from claiming the HOPE tax credit in any year in which a withdrawal from an education IRA is made-- regardless of the total amount the taxpayer spends on education. This bill allows the HOPE tax credit to be claimed to the extent that the cost of education exceeds the amount withdrawn from the IRA. It does not allow a double benefit, but it does prevent one benefit--the IRA withdrawal--from canceling another benefit. It also eliminates a potential trap for the unwary taxpayer who may accidentally claim both benefits and, as a result, incur a penalty. Mr. President, investing in education is the surest way for us to build our country's assets for the future. We need to ensure that postsecondary education is affordable and that graduates do not accumulate crippling debts while attending school. Adopting this bill will help us to accomplish both of these goals. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Savings for Scholars Act, to help families save for college expenses. This bill would make education IRAs and State tuition plans more effective vehicles for families to use in saving for postsecondary education. I want to thank Senator Roth and his staff on the Finance Committee for working with me and my staff in drafting this legislation. In the 3 years that he has chaired the Finance Committee, Senator Roth has been a true champion for all of us who place a tremendous value on educating our nation's children and young adults. When Congress created the education IRA 2 years ago, we took an important first step in the direction of encouraging families to save for their children's education. But, the law contains a very significant limitation--families cannot contribute more than $500 a year to these accounts. This restriction makes it difficult for a family to accumulate savings sufficient to pay the cost of a college degree. Even if parents start saving from the time their child is born, an investment in an education IRA of $500 a year, assuming an average annual return of 8 percent, will only yield about $19,000 when that child begins higher education. Today, the average cost of 4 years of higher education is about $30,000 at a public institution and about $75,000 at a private school. In short, the current limits are not nearly high enough to finance even today's college costs, much less the cost 18 years from now. Raising the maximum contribution to $2,000 will allow a family to accumulate at least as much as the current average cost of attending a private school. This is money that many middle-class families and their children otherwise would need to borrow; it is tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that would burden graduates with a mountain of debt. Most important, raising the education IRA contribution limit would make a 4-year college education more accessible and less of a financial challenge for middle-income families. In addition to increasing the education IRA contribution limit, this bill would make a technical change to remove a confusing inconsistently between the education IRA and the traditional IRA. The last date on which a contribution to an education IRA can be made is December 31 of any year. Traditional IRAs may receive contributions until April 15 of the year following the tax year. This bill changes the deadline for contributions to education IRAs to coincide with that of the traditional IRA. This modest change would eliminate a source of confusion that might cause a family planning to contribute to a child's IRA to inadvertently miss the deadline. The second part of my bill deals with qualified State tuition plans. These are tax-deferred plans, administered by the individual states, that allow families to prepay college tuition or to accumulate tax- deferred savings for postsecondary education expenses. My bill makes two changes in the requirements of these plans that should make them more flexible and useful to families. The first is to require that all qualified State tuition plans allow at least three rollovers without any change in beneficiary. This change would guarantee that participants in one state's plan can transfer their assets to another state's plan. The need for this could be the result of a family moving from one state to another or of a change in a child's education plans. My bill will give greater flexibility in the choice of postsecondary education institutions to the beneficiaries of these plans. The bill also proposes one additional change to the qualified tuition programs--a change that will make the plans more attractive to families. Under current law, the assets of a plan can be rolled over to specified members of a beneficiary's family. This allows the plan's assets to be used by a sibling if the original beneficiary cannot or does not use the plan. However, the definition of a family member does not include first cousins. Thus, a parent of a single child could not transfer the benefits to a niece or nephew if his or her child did not use the plan. Perhaps more significantly, this change would make the qualified state tuition plan more desirable for grandparents. They could be assured that a plan established for the benefit of one grandchild could be transferred to any of their grandchildren. The final part of this bill corrects an unfair consequence of the interaction between the HOPE tax credits and the education IRA. Currently, a taxpayer is prohibited from claiming the HOPE tax credit in any year in which a withdrawal from an education IRA is made-- regardless of the total amount the taxpayer spends on education. This bill allows the HOPE tax credit to be claimed to the extent that the cost of education exceeds the amount withdrawn from the IRA. It does not allow a double benefit, but it does prevent one benefit--the IRA withdrawal--from canceling another benefit. It also eliminates a potential trap for the unwary taxpayer who may accidentally claim both benefits and, as a result, incur a penalty. Mr. President, investing in education is the surest way for us to build our country's assets for the future. We need to ensure that postsecondary education is affordable and that graduates do not accumulate crippling debts while attending school. Adopting this bill will help us to accomplish both of these goals. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Five minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman for his patience in working this out. And I also thank the Senators from Vermont and New Jersey for agreeing to this arrangement. Mr. President, I rise to support the provisions in the Hatch-Craig amendment requiring background checks at gun shows. I believe we have very carefully crafted provisions that strike the right balance. I support the requirement that sales of firearms at gun shows pass the muster of an instant background check. Gun shows are a popular mechanism for buying and selling guns, and these legitimate business transactions should be made with the knowledge that the sellers are selling their firearms to lawful purchasers. What I opposed yesterday is something I will always oppose--and that is the creation of a Federal centralized recordkeeping system of gun owners. That would be a heavy regulatory burden that would seriously infringe on the privacy rights of millions of law-abiding American citizens who own guns. That is why I voted against the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey. I would like to make one brief comment regarding gun shows. I am very concerned that the publicity surrounding this issue has created the false impression that gun shows are somehow gathering places for criminals, anarchists, and mercenaries. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, thousands of Americans go to gun shows every weekend in this country. People who attend these shows live in every State in the Union. They come from all walks of life. They share a common interest in a part-time hobby that is deeply ingrained in our American culture. Many are sportsmen or target shooters; many others are collectors who enjoy showing, buying and selling their antique firearms. These are people who enjoy the tradition of responsible gun ownership in this country. This is a tradition--and a right--that we need to preserve. Our gun laws should be directed at the illegal misuse of firearms, not the lawful ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. The first step we should take is to address the concerns the Senator from Alabama will speak on shortly that gun laws are not being strictly enforced. The Senator from Alabama has documented an appalling drop in prosecutions of gun-related offenses, gun control laws under this administration. That should be our first step. Second, the Republican package puts together reasonable restrictions that will ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals through the mechanism of a gun show. I know the people who attend gun shows across America want to make sure they are selling to people who will use firearms in a responsible way that is the American tradition. This legislation before us strikes the right balance, and I urge support of the amendment. I commend those who have worked on this to respond to the concerns we raised yesterday. I yield back the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee.

Ms. COLLINS. For 5 minutes.