Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is now my great pleasure to yield to the Senator from Mississippi, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Governmental Affairs with jurisdiction over the Postal Service. Senator Cochran held the very first hearings on deceptive mailings last year. He has been a tremendous supporter of the effort to curtail deceptive mailings. I really appreciate his leadership on this issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from Michigan for his very generous comments. Also, once again I commend his outstanding leadership on this issue. It has been terrific working with him in a variety of areas related to consumer protection. We are where we are today because of his efforts. I also echo the thanks to our staff who have done a tremendous job. Privilege Of The Floor I do ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff during the pendency of this legislation: R. Emmett Mattes, Kathy D. Cutler, and Deirdre Foley.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, yesterday I offered an amendment to the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. My good friend Senator Coverdell and I crafted this amendment to help our public school teachers pursue professional development and pay for incidental supplies for their classrooms. Our amendment will allow teachers to deduct their professional development expenses without subjecting the deduction to the existing two percent floor. It will also allow teachers to deduct up to $125 for books, supplies, and equipment related to their teaching. Mr. President, while our amendment provides financial relief for teachers, its ultimate beneficiaries will be their students. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the most important prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have demonstrated the close relationship between qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, teachers themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and extending their levels of competence. When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthy pursuit. The willingness of Maine's teachers to fund their own professional development activities has impressed me deeply. For example, an English teacher who serves on my Educational Policy Advisory Committee told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She is typical of many teachers who generously reach into their own pockets to pay for professional development and to purchase materials that enhance their teaching. Let me explain how our amendment works in terms of real dollars. The average yearly salary of a teacher in 1997 was about $38,500. Under current law, a teacher making this salary could not deduct the first $770 in professional development and incidental instruction-related expenses that he or she paid for out of pocket. Our amendment would see to it that teachers receive tax relief for all such expenses. I greatly admire the many teachers who have voluntarily financed the additional education that they need to improve their skills and to serve their students better and who purchase books, supplies, equipment and other materials that enhance their teaching. I hope that this change in our tax code will encourage teachers to continue to take formal course work in the subject matter that they teach, to complete graduate degrees in either their subject matter or in education, and to attend conferences to give them new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. This amendment will reimburse teachers for a small part of what they invest in our children's future. Mr. President, this would be money well spent. Investing in education is the surest way for us to build one of the most important assets for our country's future, a well-educated population. We need to ensure that our public schools have the best teachers possible in order to bring out the best in our students. Adopting this amendment will help us to accomplish this goal. I thank my colleagues in joining Senator Coverdell and me in support of this effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague from Louisiana. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support and as a proud cosponsor of the Chafee-Breaux bipartisan compromise plan. I commend the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Rhode Island for their leadership in bringing Members together to craft this important proposal. This amendment represents a fair, prudent, and responsible compromise between and among the competing proposals we have been debating. It is a sensible bipartisan plan. In crafting this proposal, our bipartisan coalition has been guided by several principles. The first is perhaps best summed up by the expression, ``Don't count your chickens until they are hatched.'' We know, based on CBO estimates for the next 10 years, that we may have a projected surplus of $3 trillion. However, $1.9 trillion of that surplus is due to a surplus in the Social Security trust fund. I don't think we should spend a penny of the Social Security trust fund surplus for either tax cuts or for spending increases on non- Social Security-related programs. That should be reserved for paying Social Security benefits and for Social Security reform. That leaves roughly $1 trillion to decide how we are going to allocate. Our bipartisan coalition believes adopting a more prudent tax relief goal of approximately $500 billion over the next 10 years will provide millions of families in Maine and across the country with much- needed tax relief, while at the same time guarding against the possibility that the current surplus projections may not be fully realized in the years to come. Our proposal allows for additional amounts of the public debt to be paid down, as well as reserving extra funds that could be used to preserve and protect Medicare, to strengthen education, and for other priority programs. Our second principle is to target the tax relief we are providing. In this time of economic good fortune, we should focus our tax relief on hard-working lower-income and middle-income families. Our proposal would do just that. It allows for additional public debt to be paid off while removing 3 million low-income taxpayers from the tax rolls altogether. In addition, it slices the marginal tax rate nearly in half for another 4 million Americans. The third principle we have adhered to is quite simply pragmatism. In order to craft, to pass, and actually enact into law a tax relief bill, we must offer a plan that enjoys bipartisan support. Our proposal meets this test and in the process offers a blueprint for reasonable tax relief that should and could become law. Indeed, I predict that ultimately what will be signed into law will be very close to the proposal the bipartisan coalition has put forth today. In addition to this broad-based tax relief, our proposal includes a number of compelling tax relief measures. For example, the amendment provides substantial relief for the unfair marriage tax penalty that causes many married couples to pay more taxes together than they would if they had remained separate. It also contains important health care- related tax proposals that I, along with many other Senators, have advocated for some time. That includes a 100-percent deduction for self-employed individuals purchasing their own health insurance, as well as the deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance. In addition, our amendment contains valuable estate tax relief provisions to help our family businesses and our family farms stay in the family. It includes provisions that I sponsored to help families save for college education of their children as well as to encourage the environmental benefits that come from biomass plants. An astute, perhaps even a casual, observer might well notice that our bipartisan coalition's plan bears a striking resemblance to the plan put forth by the Finance Committee. It is, however, a slimmed down version of the Finance Committee bill in that it trims about $300 billion from the Finance Committee legislation. I urge the adoption of the Chafee-Breaux amendment. It seems a good middle ground that best provides tax relief in a prudent way for American families.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution commending the Georges Bank review panel on the recent extension of the moratorium on oil and gas exploration on Georges Bank and urging our Canadian neighbors to adopt a longer-term moratorium that would match that adopted by the United States. Georges Bank is a large shallow bank on the Outer Continental Shelf of the eastern North American continent. Georges Bank, which separates the Gulf of Maine from the open Atlantic Ocean, is traditionally known as one of the most productive fishing grounds in the world. Fishing vessels from New England and Canada catch cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, scallops, lobsters, swordfish, herring, and bluefin tuna in its waters. Literally hundreds of communities depend upon fish from Georges Bank for their way of life and livelihood. In 1984, the United States-Canadian boundary dispute involving ownership of Georges Bank was resolved by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The Court declared the northeastern portion of the bank as under Canadian jurisdiction and the southwestern portion as under the jurisdiction of the United States. Since that decision, both the United States and Canada have maintained a moratorium on oil and gas exploration on Georges Bank. In 1998, the United States extended its moratorium until the year 2012. In 1988, with the adoption of the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord Acts, Canada placed a moratorium on petroleum activities on Georges Bank until January 1, 2000. In preparation for the expiration of that moratorium, a three-person review panel held an extensive public comment period, commissioned studies, and thoroughly explored the pros and cons of allowing oil and gas activity on the Canadian portion of Georges Bank. Last month, at the conclusion of its review, the panel recommended that the moratorium on petroleum activities on Georges Bank be continued, but it did not specify a date. I certainly respect the fact that Canada is entitled to make its own mineral management decisions. Nevertheless, given the joint jurisdiction that the United States and Canada have over Georges Bank, I believe it is appropriate for this body to convey its concern and support for the unique ecosystem and fisheries of Georges Bank. An accident involving a petroleum spill on either side of the line could have a devastating impact on fisheries well up and down the coast from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the coast of New England. The severe weather in and the vast expanse of Georges Bank far from shore would greatly complicate any effort to clean up any spill that could occur. Indeed, even if a spill never occurred, the lubricants used in drilling could well have a toxic impact on Georges Bank's delicate fisheries. Fishermen from Canada and the United States are subject to strict regulations governing fishing on Georges Bank. These regulations are designed to allow fish stocks to recover after years of overfishing. They have involved considerable sacrifices for the fishermen who depend on Georges Bank to make a living. But the sacrifices are paying off, and the fish stocks are recovering. It would be a shame to set back or to reverse completely those hard-won recovery efforts with even the risk of a major oil spill. The resolution I am submitting today encourages the Government of Canada to accept the recommendations of its review panel. It also goes further by asking our neighbor to the north to extend its drilling moratorium until the year 2012 to match the American moratorium. In that way, both Canadians and Americans may be assured that Georges Bank will remain in its traditional uses.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Snowe in offering a resolution congratulating the University of Maine Men's Ice Hockey team, who, as many of my colleagues know, won the 1999 NCAA Division I Hockey Championship earlier this year. Like all who watched the thrilling championship game on April 3, I was on the edge of my seat when Marcus Gustafsson scored the game- winning goal to give the Black Bears a heart-stopping 3-2 overtime victory over the University of New Hampshire Wildcats. This incredible victory gave the Black Bears their second national championship in seven years--and nearly gave me a heart attack. I must say, had the game not been as close as it was, I would have been able to relax a bit more that night. But as any sports fan knows, a close game-- particularly a game that is won in overtime--is all the more rewarding, and much more befitting as the crowning achievement of a national champion. In Maine, where we take our sports seriously despite not having any major league sports teams, the Black Bears are a tremendous source of pride. As anyone traveling on the Maine Turnpike can tell you, signs that once welcomed you to ``Vacationland'' now welcome you to the home of the NCAA Hockey Champions. This year the Black Bears once again earned our admiration with an impressive record of 31 wins, 6 losses, and 4 ties. Also, they repeatedly wowed the faithful Maine fans by winning all but one game on their home ice--the beloved Alfond Arena. Throughout the season, the players and coaching staff all showed tremendous dedication and heart, and their ability to work together as a team was second to none. They advanced boldly through the NCAA tournament, beating Boston College in overtime at the ``Frozen Four,'' and ultimately earned the right to play in the championship game against the University of New Hampshire Wildcats--a team that had beaten the Black Bears twice earlier in the season. Not to be denied, the Black Bears persevered and beat the Wildcats when it mattered the most. True to form for any national championship team, the Black Bears have a tremendous amount of talent. Four Maine men were selected in this year's National Hockey League draft, and I suspect that several more of their teammates will eventually join them in playing professional hockey. What made this team great, however, was its strong determination, its ability to work together, and its perseverance. It is these qualities that produce championships, and they are qualities that will continue to serve these fine young men very well--both on and off the ice. Since winning the championship, the Black Bears have enjoyed a substantial amount of much-deserved recognition. I was proud to be among those fans who were on hand to welcome the victorious team home, and I was also pleased to speak at an awards dinner in the team's honor. Soon, Maine's players and coaches will be honored by the President at the White House. Therefore, I believe it is altogether fitting and proper that the Senate add its voice, and recognize the Black Bears' accomplishments, by adopting the resolution that I so proudly offer with Senator Snowe. While the Senate chamber may not be Alfond Arena, it is most appropriate that I close my remarks with the chant, ``M-A-I-N-E Gooooooo Blue!'' I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. In my State of Maine, this new border policy would have the most immediate impact on border communities such as Calais, Houlton, Madawaska, and Jackman. Businesses in these communities rely on Canadian consumers to stay in business. Moreover, the impact on trade, including lumber and tourism, would extend beyond these communities and reverberate across Maine and through the Northern economy as a whole. Those of us who represent states along the Canadian border know intimately how deep the shared ties between the U.S. and Canada truly are. Our relationship has included disagreements over the years, but our Canadian neighbors are part of our family--a fact that is literally and figuratively true for many Mainers whose extended families live across the border in Canada.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate Maine's Community Alliance to End Violence Against Children. The Alliance, which includes the Maine State Police, Catholic Charities Maine, and the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, will improve and expand the coordination of services for preventing and reducing the negative impact that exposure to violence has on young children. As my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire is aware, rural regions have unique problems coordinating and delivering services to children exposed to violence.

Ms. COLLINS. Downeast Maine is particularly in need of help. Washington County, for example, is a large rural area in which chronic poverty, unemployment, substance abuse and domestic violence result in far too many children being exposed to violence. Currently there is no program in these counties that offers adequate intervention and treatment to address the harmful aftereffects of exposure to violence. The Alliance will develop a system through which existing resources can be coordinated to provide appropriate and timely responses to the emotionally and physically damaging situations children often face. There is strong evidence that a rapid response team, intervening on behalf of children in crisis situations, can mitigate the long term consequences of trauma.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important issue of a visa entry-exit control system with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Abraham, you and I and other Members who represent the Northern regions of our country have been working for over 3 years now to repeal Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208). Section 110 of this 1996 Immigration law would require a recording and identification system to be implemented to document the arrival and departure of all non-U.S. citizens at all ports of entry in the U.S., including those entry points along the U.S. border with Canada.

Ms. COLLINS. Largely because of your efforts, Senator Abraham, Section 110 has yet to be substantively implemented at land borders and sea ports of entry. Last year, the FY99 Omnibus Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (105-277) delayed the implementation of Section 110 on land and sea ports of entry until March 31, 2001, and included language stating that the entry/exit control system must ``not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of entry''. And in today's Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations bill, Section 110 is repealed outright. I salute your efforts on behalf of this very important measure which will benefit both of our states and the northern economy as a whole.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you to both Senators for their leadership on this issue, and for joining me in this colloquy. Drug Enforcement Administration

Ms. COLLINS. I am sure that many rural communities will benefit from the work of the Maine Alliance. Its plan has been inspired by the work of Dr. Carl Bell, President of the Community Mental Health Council in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Bell's analysis of the effects of trauma and the needs of African-American youth in Chicago can be applied to the predominantly white and Native-American youth in eastern, rural Maine and ultimately youth in any rural area.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for their support and look forward to working with you to implement this project. consolidation of all first responder training at the CDP

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce The Higher Education Reporting Relief Act of 1999, which will reduce the burdensome reporting requirements placed on educational institutions by the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. I am pleased to be joined by my principal cosponsor, Senator DeWine, who has been a leader on this and many other education issues, and by one colleague Senator Gordon Smith, who shares our concern for the reporting burden we are placing on our institutions of higher education. When Congress created the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credits, it unfortunately imposed a burdensome and costly reporting requirement on our universities, colleges and proprietary schools. If implemented, the regulations will require schools to provide the IRS with information on their students that is difficult to obtain, including the taxpayer identification number of the individual who will actually claim the tax credit generated by the student. In many cases, this individual will not be the student but rather his or her parent or parents. In the words of the President of the University of Maine at Farmington: At a time when we are working to increase access and to contain college costs, new government reporting requirements are working against us. We will need to add personnel, not in support of our educational functions but to comply with new IRS regulations. This is not sensible and it is definitely not in the interests of the people we are here to serve. I think that her words say it very well. Already, the University of Maine System has been forced to spend $112,000 to meet the Hope Scholarship reporting requirement, and the most burdensome requirements have not yet become mandatory. In total, these reporting requirements are estimated to cost America's postsecondary educational institutions as much as $125 million. This burden does not make sense. Last year, by passing the Collins-DeWine amendment to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, the Senate eliminated one of the most difficult reporting requirements. Our amendment freed schools from the requirement to report financial aid received by a student from a third party and held them responsible for only informing the IRS about financial aid that a school actually administered. In addition, the conference report on the act recognized the problem faced by schools and deferred the implementation of full reporting requirements until the IRS had issued final guidelines. Since the final reporting requirements have not been issued, this deferral remains in effect for tax year 1999. The conference report further urged the IRS to modernize its computer systems to include the capacity to match a dependent student's taxpayer identification number with the return of the person claiming the student as a dependent. This is the true answer to this problem. Unfortunately, this has not yet been done. If this step is not taken, institutions of higher education will be required to provide this burdensome & costly information to the IRS--a very difficult process. The legislation we introduce today will defer the implementation of the reporting requirements for three years--through tax year 2001. Further, it will require the IRS to upgrade its data processing systems along the lines recommended by the conference report. Today, as I mention, the IRS has not done this. The IRS will be required to make this change in time for processing tax returns for the year 2002. We have included this delay to give the IRS 2 years after it has been completed dealing with any data processing problems caused by the year 2000 problem. The rationale for the Hope and the Lifetime Learning credits is to make postsecondary education more affordable and therefore more accessible. What Congress has given with one hand it has taken away in part with its regulatory hand. The cost of conforming to the regulatory requirements will inevitably result in increases in tuition, chipping away at the benefit of the tax credits. We need to correct this problem. The $112,000 that the University of Maine has already been forced to spend to comply with the law clearly is going to be passed on to the students in increased tuitions. Last year, Senator DeWine and I introduced the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act that would have completely repealed the reporting requirements imposed on educational institutions. Because of the cost of that approach, we have reworked last year's bill in a way that will accomplish its most important objectives while substantially reducing its potential costs to the Treasury. Our legislation would still leave a reporting burden on the schools but a much more modest and reasonable one that takes into account who is best equipped to report the information that the IRS needs to administer the law. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act of 1999. I yield the reminder of my time to Senator DeWine.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank both Senators for their cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a sense-of-the- Senate amendment to address a growing problem in this country, and that is the needless proliferation of area codes. As many of my colleagues have witnessed in their own States, new area codes are being imposed upon consumers and businesses at a dizzying pace. While the modern technology of faxes, cell phones, pagers, and computer modems has played a role in creating this problem, area code exhaustion stems largely from the woefully inefficient system for allocating numbers to local telephone companies. This leads to the exhaustion of an area code long before all of the telephone numbers covered by that code actually have been used. My own home State of Maine dramatically illustrates this problem. We have a population in Maine of approximately 1.2 million people. Within our ``207'' area code, there are roughly 8 million usable numbers and some 5.7 million of these numbers are still unused. Incredibly enough, however, Maine has been notified that it will be forced to add a new area code by the year 2001. This paradigm of inefficiency in the midst of America's telecommunications revolution might almost be amusing were it not for the fact that it causes real hardships for many small businesses, particularly small businesses in the tourism industry. Businesspeople throughout my State, particularly in the coastal communities, have contacted me to express their concern. I have heard from a gallery owner in Rockport, an innkeeper in Bar Harbor, and a schooner captain in Rockland, who have expressed to me their concern about the costs involved in updating brochures, business cards, and other promotional literature, all of which will be necessitated by the creation of a new area code--the needless creation of a new area code. As one innkeeper told me, it takes as long as 2 years to revise certain guidebooks, which are the principal means by which he communicates with potential customers. Changing the area code could lead to a significant loss in business for many small tourism businesses as well as unneeded expense for these small companies. Moreover, along with the economic costs, a new area code creates tremendous disruption and confusion for consumers. The Federal Communications Commission has initiated a rulemaking procedure to address this growing problem. But since time is of the essence in ensuring that Maine and many other States not be forced to add another unnecessary area code, my amendment requires that the FCC release its final report and order no later than March 31 of next year. It also specifies that the order shall minimize costs and disruptions to consumers and businesses located in all areas of the country, not just in major cities. The FCC right now appears to be focusing mainly on the larger markets and ignoring the implications for rural areas. It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee as well as the distinguished ranking minority member. I thank them very much for their cooperation and assistance in drafting this amendment, as well as for their cosponsorship of it.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Gregg, Hollings, Torricelli, Feingold, Smith of New Hampshire, and Lieberman.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I further ask unanimous consent that the time reserved for the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, be given to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce The Higher Education Reporting Relief Act of 1999, which will reduce the burdensome reporting requirements placed on educational institutions by the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. I am pleased to be joined by my principal cosponsor, Senator DeWine, who has been a leader on this and many other education issues, and by one colleague Senator Gordon Smith, who shares our concern for the reporting burden we are placing on our institutions of higher education. When Congress created the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credits, it unfortunately imposed a burdensome and costly reporting requirement on our universities, colleges and proprietary schools. If implemented, the regulations will require schools to provide the IRS with information on their students that is difficult to obtain, including the taxpayer identification number of the individual who will actually claim the tax credit generated by the student. In many cases, this individual will not be the student but rather his or her parent or parents. In the words of the President of the University of Maine at Farmington: At a time when we are working to increase access and to contain college costs, new government reporting requirements are working against us. We will need to add personnel, not in support of our educational functions but to comply with new IRS regulations. This is not sensible and it is definitely not in the interests of the people we are here to serve. I think that her words say it very well. Already, the University of Maine System has been forced to spend $112,000 to meet the Hope Scholarship reporting requirement, and the most burdensome requirements have not yet become mandatory. In total, these reporting requirements are estimated to cost America's postsecondary educational institutions as much as $125 million. This burden does not make sense. Last year, by passing the Collins-DeWine amendment to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act, the Senate eliminated one of the most difficult reporting requirements. Our amendment freed schools from the requirement to report financial aid received by a student from a third party and held them responsible for only informing the IRS about financial aid that a school actually administered. In addition, the conference report on the act recognized the problem faced by schools and deferred the implementation of full reporting requirements until the IRS had issued final guidelines. Since the final reporting requirements have not been issued, this deferral remains in effect for tax year 1999. The conference report further urged the IRS to modernize its computer systems to include the capacity to match a dependent student's taxpayer identification number with the return of the person claiming the student as a dependent. This is the true answer to this problem. Unfortunately, this has not yet been done. If this step is not taken, institutions of higher education will be required to provide this burdensome & costly information to the IRS--a very difficult process. The legislation we introduce today will defer the implementation of the reporting requirements for three years--through tax year 2001. Further, it will require the IRS to upgrade its data processing systems along the lines recommended by the conference report. Today, as I mention, the IRS has not done this. The IRS will be required to make this change in time for processing tax returns for the year 2002. We have included this delay to give the IRS 2 years after it has been completed dealing with any data processing problems caused by the year 2000 problem. The rationale for the Hope and the Lifetime Learning credits is to make postsecondary education more affordable and therefore more accessible. What Congress has given with one hand it has taken away in part with its regulatory hand. The cost of conforming to the regulatory requirements will inevitably result in increases in tuition, chipping away at the benefit of the tax credits. We need to correct this problem. The $112,000 that the University of Maine has already been forced to spend to comply with the law clearly is going to be passed on to the students in increased tuitions. Last year, Senator DeWine and I introduced the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act that would have completely repealed the reporting requirements imposed on educational institutions. Because of the cost of that approach, we have reworked last year's bill in a way that will accomplish its most important objectives while substantially reducing its potential costs to the Treasury. Our legislation would still leave a reporting burden on the schools but a much more modest and reasonable one that takes into account who is best equipped to report the information that the IRS needs to administer the law. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act of 1999. I yield the reminder of my time to Senator DeWine.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor to the Kyl/ Domenici/Murkowski amendment requiring reorganization of the Department of Energy. Over the past several months, I have been deeply troubled by the revelations regarding the efforts made by the People's Republic of China to acquire our most sensitive technology. The report of the House Select Committee revealed that design information has been stolen on all of the nuclear warheads that the United States currently has deployed. Among the material stolen by China was design information on the W-88, the most sophisticated nuclear weapon the U.S. has ever built. We use the W-88 on the sixth-generation ballistic missiles carried aboard our nuclear submarine fleet. With this information, the PRC has rapidly assimilated stolen nuclear secrets into its own weapons systems and advanced their nuclear program by approximately forty years. Not only am I deeply concerned about these incidents of espionage, I am even more disturbed by the lackadaisical response by the Clinton Administration. After learning about the theft of information in 1995, the Administration failed to undertake a serious reassessment of our intelligence community. When questioned a few months ago about the Department of Energy's security structure, Secretary Bill Richardson commented, ``whoever figured it out must've been smoking dope or drunk.'' What a sobering assessment, indeed, of the state of security at our nuclear weapons laboratories. In fact, only after the espionage accounts hit the news media earlier this year did the President take any action to reevaluate the security of our weapons labs. In March, the President requested that the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) undertake an inquiry and issue a report on the security threat at the Department of Energy's weapons labs. This review, chaired by the former Senator Warren B. Rudman, found that the Department of Energy is responsible for the worst security record that the members of the advisory board had ever encountered. The Department devoted far too little time, attention, and resources to the responsibilities of security and counterintelligence. Without change, it is feared that the Department of Energy laboratories would continue to be a major target of foreign intelligence services. According to the Rudman report, the only way to combat these problems is through a reorganization which takes the oversight of our weapons labs away from the ``dysfunctional bureaucracy'' of the Department of Energy and gives it to a new, semi- autonomous agency. The Kyl/Domenici/Murkowski amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, will begin the reform efforts at the Department of Energy by establishing a separate organizational entity, the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship, with clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility. These changes will help correct the current organizational disarray and ensure that all programs and activities related to national security functions receive proper attention and oversight. These changes will strengthen the security and protection of our most vital technological secrets and ensure that if violations do occur, the responsible parties are readily identified, and the proper corrective actions put into place immediately. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this amendment to help ensure the security of our nation for years to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute from the underlying bill.