Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. Under the previous order, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 254, the juvenile justice bill, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. It is hoped significant progress will be made on that bill, and therefore Senators should expect votes after 2:15 p.m. during Tuesday's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last Thursday, I introduced the Biomass Energy Equity Act of 1999. I was pleased to be joined by Senator Boxer, my colleague from California, as an original cosponsor. This legislation makes a common-sense change to the renewable energy production tax credit by expanding it to include additional types of biomass plants. I would like to take a few minutes now to discuss the need for this important bill and to describe what it would do. Simply put, biomass energy production uses combustion to turn wood and organic waste into energy in an environmentally sound process. Biomass takes a public liability, organic waste, and converts it into a public asset, energy. The renewable energy production tax credit enacted in 1992 provides incentives to the solid-fuel biomass and wind energy industry to develop economically viable and environmentally responsible renewable sources of electricity. In enacting that legislation, Congress recognized that biomass energy offers substantial environmental benefits, specifically a reduced dependence on oil and coal, a desirable alternative to open field burnings and the landfilling of organic material, and a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, an error was made that nullified the potential societal benefits that incentives for biomass energy production offers. The 1992 act narrowly defined an eligible biomass facility as including only so-called closed-loop biomass facilities. Closed-loop biomass is a hypothetical form of electricity generation where the fuel is planted, grown, and harvested specifically and solely for the fuel of the power plant. Not only does this definition rule out the significant environmental benefit of disposal of organic waste otherwise destined for a landfill or to be field-burned, but also this scenario is not feasible and therefore remains unused. Since the biomass tax credit was passed, no taxpayer, not one, has taken advantage of the tax benefit. Simply put, the closed-loop tax credit is not a sufficient incentive to develop a costly ``fuel plantation,'' which entails large-scale land purchases, property taxes, and growing material for the sole purpose of burning it. By demanding that newly grown material be used rather than organic waste, the closed-loop biomass definition flies in the face of the commonly accepted environmental principle that products should be put to as many ``highest value'' uses as possible. Mr. President, several states, including Maine, are deregulating their energy industries. Starting March 1, 2000, electricity consumers in Maine will be able to shop for electricity as they now shop for long-distance telephone service. While the specifics remain very much up in the air, the country is progressing toward restructuring electricity generation and distribution. While there are many clear economic benefits to a deregulated energy market, without incentives like the one I am proposing, green, renewable energy production like biomass is unlikely to be able to survive in deregulated market. The legislation that I have introduced would expand the eligibility of the biomass tax credit to include conventional biomass plants. This legislation is designed to encourage a source of energy generation that offers substantial air quality, waste management, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The national biomass industry currently uses over 22,000,000 tons of wood waste a year. The waste the biomass industry converts into energy otherwise would be disposed of in one of three ways: burned in an open field, which generates pollution not energy; landfilled, where it fills limited landfill space and biodegrades, emitting methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases, or left in the woods or fields, increasing the risk and severity of forest fires. The air quality benefits of biomass energy are of particular importance. According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an organization of all the Northeastern States Air Quality Bureaus, biomass energy produces less nitrogen oxide than biomass alternatives, and furthermore, it generates virtually no sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or mercury. Biomass energy production also results in a net reduction of greenhouse gases, as I have previously stated. In addition to their environmental benefits, biomass plants contribute to the economy of many rural towns throughout America. Because of their dependence on organic waste, biomass facilities are usually located in rural areas where they are often important engines of economic growth. For example, in the small town of Sherman, ME, a biomass facility provides 56 percent of the property tax base. It also directly employs 23 individuals and indirectly provides work for hundreds of truck drivers, wood operators, mill workers and maintenance contractors. In another small town of Maine, Athens, ME, a biomass facility provides a third of that small town's tax base and directly employs 20 people, while supporting a local wood operator who, in turn, employs 40 people. The point is, the economy in many of the small towns in Maine, in towns such as Livermore, Ashland, Greenville, Fort Fairfield, Stratton and West Enfield benefit considerably from these biomass facilities. In total, there are over 100 biomass facilities in the United States, representing an investment in excess of $7 billion. These facilities contribute jobs, property taxes and a disposal point for waste products. In addition, rural biomass facilities also provide ash for use by local farmers, reducing their purchases of lime. I understand there is regularly more demand for the ash produced by these biomass plants than there is supply. With biomass energy production, nothing is wasted. Biomass turns waste products--the byproducts of timber, paper or farming operations-- into needed energy, wasting nothing. Even the ash is returned to the Earth to grow organic matter yielding both crops and waste to generate still more electricity. We in Congress often discuss ways to help rural America. I know that is of great concern to the Presiding Officer. This proposal offers an opportunity to do so in a way that not only benefits the economy of small towns in rural America but also in a way that generates considerable environmental benefits that we all can enjoy. This measure makes both economic and environmental sense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and working for its passage. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution that the Senate just unanimously approved to designate May as the National Military Appreciation Month. With troops in harm's way in Bosnia, in Serbia, in Haiti and the Persian Gulf, it is difficult to conceive of a more appropriate time for the Senate to have clearly put itself on record as supporting our brave men and women in uniform. Regardless of how we may feel about these individual deployments, it is important that the American people send an unmistakable signal to our troops that we salute their bravery, their patriotism, their courage and their unparalleled skill as they carry out dangerous missions throughout the world. I am proud to support our troops 100 percent, as they carry out their missions and the will of the Commander in Chief. Mr. President, let us all join together today and every day to remember our troops throughout the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homelessness Assistance Funding Fairness Act. I introduce this bill in conjunction with my House colleague, Congressman John Baldacci, who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House. Congressman Baldacci and I have been working on issues involving the homeless for some time, in our attempt to devise an approach that will distribute federal funds more equitably and effectively. Congress has taken important steps to begin to address the root causes of homelessness in America. Some of the most important are the Continuum of Care programs which provide grants that link neighborhood partnerships and community services with shelter. The goal of Continuum of Care programs is self-sufficiency for people who are homeless, an approach that goes well-beyond the ``band aid'' solutions of yesteryear which provided the homeless only a bed for the night. Continuum of Care programs support treatment and counseling programs in conjunction with shelter, recognizing the hard reality that many homeless people must overcome serious substance abuse, addiction, and mental health problems before a life of permanent housing and stability is possible. Under the leadership of VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Bond, Congress has recognized the great importance of Continuum of Care programs, and has risen to the challenge to provide this broad spectrum of care by appropriating $975 million last year for homeless assistance grants, a large portion of which are Continuum of Care grants. Although the strategy behind the Continuum of Care grant programs has been saluted for its logic, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's administration of the competitive award process that allocates this funding has not been similarly celebrated. The unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year is illustrative of the problems in the distribution of funding. Maine submitted two Continuum of Care grant applications in 1998, one to address the needs of the City of Portland, and another to serve the needs of much of the remainder of the state. In December 1998, HUD announced the Continuum of Care grant recipients and Maine was shocked to learn the State would receive no funding through the grant process. After some investigation, my office determined that the scores for both the Maine applications were within two points of a passing grade. Nevertheless, Continuum of Care HUD homeless assistance funding distributed to Maine went from $3.7 million to zero, despite the fact that in 1998 Secretary Cuomo had awarded programs which received funding through the Continuum of Care program the ``best practices'' award of excellence. Following a vigorous public campaign by Maine residents, and the repeated intervention of Maine's congressional delegation, HUD provided a small portion of the original request to the City of Portland outside the competitive process. The money, though welcomed, was far from enough to allow Portland to meet the needs of its homeless population. The human cost of this bureaucratic determination is immense. In light of the ongoing needs of the homeless in Maine, as well the often harsh weather conditions in our region of the country, HUD's decision was particularly troubling. The experience of the state of Maine has convinced me not only of the critical need for funding of these projects, but also of the need to re-evaluate the process for distributing these funds. No state should be wholly shut out of the funding award process, because it is an unfortunate reality that all states have homeless people with significant needs. In response to the unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year, the legislation I am proposing specifically directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide a minimum percentage of Continuum of Care competitive grant funding to each state. This will create a safety net for the homeless of each state, without ending the competitive process that recognizes programs of special merit or need. My legislation also directs HUD to distribute this funding to a state's priority programs should the state only receive this mandatory minimum. This legislation is not only driven by basic questions of fairness to all states, but by the significant and often forgotten needs of homeless people living in rural America. The problem of homelessness is often mischaracterized as an exclusive problem of urban areas. However, homelessness in Maine, and in many rural communities across our country, is a large and growing problem. From 1993 to 1996, Maine experienced an increase in its homeless population of almost 20%--it is estimated that more than 14,000 people are homeless in my home state today. In a state of only 1.2 million people, this is a troubling percentage of the population. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor perhaps said it best: ``If the urban homeless are faceless and nameless. . . then the rural homeless are practically invisible.'' However, Mr. President, that does not mean they do not exist. Unlike homeless individuals in urban areas who are seen on busy streets everyday, rural individuals living in poverty often subsist in relative isolation. The 27,000 Maine households with incomes of less than $6,000 annually teeter on a shadowy brink where income cannot guarantee shelter. When fortune turns sour, it is these families who find themselves without decent shelter. When substance abuse or mental illness afflicts the parents, the likelihood of homelessness escalates. Indeed, in Maine, 24 percent of visitors to Maine homeless shelters are families with children. The problem of providing services to homeless people is compounded by many challenges. In some areas of Maine, geographic isolation is the most critical obstacle to receipt of services; in others, rising housing costs makes obtaining housing exceedingly difficult for the marginally employed. Both these circumstances are compounded by the significant substance abuse and mental health problems prevalent among the homeless population in Maine as in all areas of the country. I am proud to say that the people of Maine have developed many innovative programs to assist our homeless population. Through programs like the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, which fills the immediate needs of outreach, shelter and counseling to area homeless, and more long term programs like Shalom House, which provides services and shelter for the mentally ill, the Preble Street Resource Center, which provides job training, social services and medical care among its many services, and the YWCA, which provides programs to assist teen age moms, Mainers have worked hard to reach out and assist those in need and to provide effective care and outreach for Maine's homeless people. I recently had the opportunity to visit with the staff and clients of a shelter in Alfred, Maine, that is making a real difference in the lives of homeless men and women. As one man who has battled both severe alcoholism and mental illness told me, ``The people at this shelter saved my life. Without their help, I'd be dead on the street. But now, I can see a future for myself.'' Significantly, 90 percent of the homeless people served by this York County Shelter face serious problems with substance abuse or mental illness. These programs, and others like them, depend on federal funding, and its unexpected loss last year has left my state scrambling to make up for this serious shortfall. I hope you will join me in supporting this legislation that will prevent other states from facing this same misfortune. All states deserve at least a minimum percentage of homeless funding available through the Continuum of Care grants, because no state has yet solved the problems faced by its homeless men, women and children.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homelessness Assistance Funding Fairness Act. I introduce this bill in conjunction with my House colleague, Congressman John Baldacci, who is sponsoring a companion bill in the House. Congressman Baldacci and I have been working on issues involving the homeless for some time, in our attempt to devise an approach that will distribute federal funds more equitably and effectively. Congress has taken important steps to begin to address the root causes of homelessness in America. Some of the most important are the Continuum of Care programs which provide grants that link neighborhood partnerships and community services with shelter. The goal of Continuum of Care programs is self-sufficiency for people who are homeless, an approach that goes well-beyond the ``band aid'' solutions of yesteryear which provided the homeless only a bed for the night. Continuum of Care programs support treatment and counseling programs in conjunction with shelter, recognizing the hard reality that many homeless people must overcome serious substance abuse, addiction, and mental health problems before a life of permanent housing and stability is possible. Under the leadership of VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Bond, Congress has recognized the great importance of Continuum of Care programs, and has risen to the challenge to provide this broad spectrum of care by appropriating $975 million last year for homeless assistance grants, a large portion of which are Continuum of Care grants. Although the strategy behind the Continuum of Care grant programs has been saluted for its logic, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's administration of the competitive award process that allocates this funding has not been similarly celebrated. The unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year is illustrative of the problems in the distribution of funding. Maine submitted two Continuum of Care grant applications in 1998, one to address the needs of the City of Portland, and another to serve the needs of much of the remainder of the state. In December 1998, HUD announced the Continuum of Care grant recipients and Maine was shocked to learn the State would receive no funding through the grant process. After some investigation, my office determined that the scores for both the Maine applications were within two points of a passing grade. Nevertheless, Continuum of Care HUD homeless assistance funding distributed to Maine went from $3.7 million to zero, despite the fact that in 1998 Secretary Cuomo had awarded programs which received funding through the Continuum of Care program the ``best practices'' award of excellence. Following a vigorous public campaign by Maine residents, and the repeated intervention of Maine's congressional delegation, HUD provided a small portion of the original request to the City of Portland outside the competitive process. The money, though welcomed, was far from enough to allow Portland to meet the needs of its homeless population. The human cost of this bureaucratic determination is immense. In light of the ongoing needs of the homeless in Maine, as well the often harsh weather conditions in our region of the country, HUD's decision was particularly troubling. The experience of the state of Maine has convinced me not only of the critical need for funding of these projects, but also of the need to re-evaluate the process for distributing these funds. No state should be wholly shut out of the funding award process, because it is an unfortunate reality that all states have homeless people with significant needs. In response to the unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year, the legislation I am proposing specifically directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide a minimum percentage of Continuum of Care competitive grant funding to each state. This will create a safety net for the homeless of each state, without ending the competitive process that recognizes programs of special merit or need. My legislation also directs HUD to distribute this funding to a state's priority programs should the state only receive this mandatory minimum. This legislation is not only driven by basic questions of fairness to all states, but by the significant and often forgotten needs of homeless people living in rural America. The problem of homelessness is often mischaracterized as an exclusive problem of urban areas. However, homelessness in Maine, and in many rural communities across our country, is a large and growing problem. From 1993 to 1996, Maine experienced an increase in its homeless population of almost 20%--it is estimated that more than 14,000 people are homeless in my home state today. In a state of only 1.2 million people, this is a troubling percentage of the population. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor perhaps said it best: ``If the urban homeless are faceless and nameless. . . then the rural homeless are practically invisible.'' However, Mr. President, that does not mean they do not exist. Unlike homeless individuals in urban areas who are seen on busy streets everyday, rural individuals living in poverty often subsist in relative isolation. The 27,000 Maine households with incomes of less than $6,000 annually teeter on a shadowy brink where income cannot guarantee shelter. When fortune turns sour, it is these families who find themselves without decent shelter. When substance abuse or mental illness afflicts the parents, the likelihood of homelessness escalates. Indeed, in Maine, 24 percent of visitors to Maine homeless shelters are families with children. The problem of providing services to homeless people is compounded by many challenges. In some areas of Maine, geographic isolation is the most critical obstacle to receipt of services; in others, rising housing costs makes obtaining housing exceedingly difficult for the marginally employed. Both these circumstances are compounded by the significant substance abuse and mental health problems prevalent among the homeless population in Maine as in all areas of the country. I am proud to say that the people of Maine have developed many innovative programs to assist our homeless population. Through programs like the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, which fills the immediate needs of outreach, shelter and counseling to area homeless, and more long term programs like Shalom House, which provides services and shelter for the mentally ill, the Preble Street Resource Center, which provides job training, social services and medical care among its many services, and the YWCA, which provides programs to assist teen age moms, Mainers have worked hard to reach out and assist those in need and to provide effective care and outreach for Maine's homeless people. I recently had the opportunity to visit with the staff and clients of a shelter in Alfred, Maine, that is making a real difference in the lives of homeless men and women. As one man who has battled both severe alcoholism and mental illness told me, ``The people at this shelter saved my life. Without their help, I'd be dead on the street. But now, I can see a future for myself.'' Significantly, 90 percent of the homeless people served by this York County Shelter face serious problems with substance abuse or mental illness. These programs, and others like them, depend on federal funding, and its unexpected loss last year has left my state scrambling to make up for this serious shortfall. I hope you will join me in supporting this legislation that will prevent other states from facing this same misfortune. All states deserve at least a minimum percentage of homeless funding available through the Continuum of Care grants, because no state has yet solved the problems faced by its homeless men, women and children.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business not to exceed 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of a Joint Resolution to reauthorize the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I am proud to give my support to this measure and do so without hesitation because the New England Dairy Compact is a proven success that is critical to the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and New England. First approved by Congress in the 1996 Farm Bill, the New England Dairy Compact already has a proven track record of quantifiable benefits to both consumers and farmers. The Compact works by simply evening out the peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost of milk and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome, local milk. Over the past eight months, in particular, the Compact has proven its worth. As prices climbed and farmers were receiving a sustainable price for milk, the Compact turned off, when prices dropped, the Compact was again triggered. The Compact simply softened and slowed the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile fluid milk market. It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the Compact. Not only does the Compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuation in the retail cost of milk, it also guarantees that the consumer is assured the availability of a supply of fresh, local milk. We've known for a long time that dairy products are an important part of a healthy diet, but recent studies are proving that dairy products provide a host of new nutritional benefits. Just as we are learning of the tremendous health benefits of dairy foods, however, milk consumption, especially among young people, is dropping. It is a crucial, common-sense, first step to reverse this trend, for milk to be available and consistently affordable for young families. Finally, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that, during the first six- months of the Compact, it did not adversely impact farmers from outside the Compact region and added no federal costs to nutrition programs. In fact, this legislation specifically excepts the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program from any costs related to the Compact. I would like to thank the Senators from Vermont for their leadership on this critical issue. I look forward to working with them to see this important resolution passed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of a Joint Resolution to reauthorize the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I am proud to give my support to this measure and do so without hesitation because the New England Dairy Compact is a proven success that is critical to the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and New England. First approved by Congress in the 1996 Farm Bill, the New England Dairy Compact already has a proven track record of quantifiable benefits to both consumers and farmers. The Compact works by simply evening out the peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost of milk and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome, local milk. Over the past eight months, in particular, the Compact has proven its worth. As prices climbed and farmers were receiving a sustainable price for milk, the Compact turned off, when prices dropped, the Compact was again triggered. The Compact simply softened and slowed the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile fluid milk market. It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the Compact. Not only does the Compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuation in the retail cost of milk, it also guarantees that the consumer is assured the availability of a supply of fresh, local milk. We've known for a long time that dairy products are an important part of a healthy diet, but recent studies are proving that dairy products provide a host of new nutritional benefits. Just as we are learning of the tremendous health benefits of dairy foods, however, milk consumption, especially among young people, is dropping. It is a crucial, common-sense, first step to reverse this trend, for milk to be available and consistently affordable for young families. Finally, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that, during the first six- months of the Compact, it did not adversely impact farmers from outside the Compact region and added no federal costs to nutrition programs. In fact, this legislation specifically excepts the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program from any costs related to the Compact. I would like to thank the Senators from Vermont for their leadership on this critical issue. I look forward to working with them to see this important resolution passed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. For the information of all Senators, on Monday the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the Y2K legislation. A cloture vote on that motion will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. Senators can therefore expect the next rollcall vote on Monday at 5:30. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Landrieu, Senator Thurmond, Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, Senator Chafee, and Senator Lott.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1999. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Roth, Grassley, and Bond, who have demonstrated unparalleled leadership on IG issues in the Senate. Indeed, Senator Roth is one of the architects of the inspector general law, having advocated its creation in 1978 and, in 1982, having introduced legislation that created IGs in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and the Treasury. In such distinguished company, I am confident that my legislation hits the mark of improving an already invaluable program. As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate has been the seemingly never-ending fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. We have all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads built to nowhere. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers, but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, in some cases forcing cutbacks in the delivery of vital Government services. Over the past 2 years in my capacity as the subcommittee's chairman, I have seen disturbing fraud and waste firsthand in a wide variety of programs. Last year, for example, the subcommittee held several hearings to shine a spotlight on the massive fraud in the Medicare Program. To cite just one example of the subcommittee's findings, our investigation revealed that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies. These companies provided absolutely no services to our senior citizens at all. Indeed, the address listed by one such company did not even exist, and if it had existed, it would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport. The fraud we uncovered was stunning. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year, diverting scarce resources from the elderly and legitimate health care providers in a program already under enormous financial strain. The Medicare fraud investigation and others like it were undertaken by my subcommittee working hand in hand with the inspectors general for a variety of Federal agencies. The inspectors general are charged with identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs administered by the agencies they monitor. Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the IG Act, the law that Congress passed to create these guardians of the public purse. As we recognize this important milestone, it is important for Congress to take a close look at the IG system. We must build on its strengths and remedy its weaknesses. Over the past 21 years, the inspector general community has grown from 12 in 1978 to 58 inspectors general today. Offices of Inspectors General receive more than a billion dollars in annual funding and employ over 12,000 auditors, criminal investigators, and support personnel. Each Office of Inspector General shoulders tremendous responsibilities and is given considerable power to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal programs. By and large, the IG community has performed in an outstanding manner. IGs have made thousands of recommendations to Congress, ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Inspectors general have conducted investigations that have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars from companies and individuals who have defrauded the Federal Government. The inspectors general have a demonstrated record of success over the past 20 years. But as with all Government entities, we must ensure that the IG community is as well-managed, accountable, and effective as possible. IGs are public watchdogs, but they, too, must be watched. With these principles in mind and drawing on my extensive work with the inspectors general over the past 2 years, I am today introducing legislation to improve the accountability, independence, and efficiency of the inspectors general program. The legislation I am introducing is designed to increase the accountability of inspectors general while retaining and, in some aspects, strengthening the provisions in law that guarantee their independence from the agencies they oversee. My bill establishes a renewable 9-year term of office for each of the inspectors general who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Currently, Presidential IGs serve for an indeterminate term. The IG community has testified that having a fixed term of office would provide them with the assurances they need to be able to perform their vital but, in some cases, unpopular oversight responsibilities in a more independent environment. The 9-year term also would enhance IG autonomy because it would extend beyond two Presidential administrations. There has been considerable turnover in some of the IG positions, and the establishment of a fixed term would also encourage inspectors general to serve for longer periods of time, thus, adding experience to the IG community. Finally, by providing a defined term of service, an appropriate framework is provided for the evaluation of the performance of each IG to determine if re-appointment is warranted. Thus, Mr. President, the 9-year term I am proposing would both enhance the independence of the IGs while improving their accountability. My legislation also takes steps to streamline the IG offices themselves, making them more efficient and flexible, by consolidating existing offices and by reducing the frequency with which IGs must prepare and file resource-intensive reports. Some of the IGs' offices that exist today are very small, with just a handful of employees. They could be made more efficient and effective by transferring their functions to larger IG offices that oversee similar programs. For example, my legislation consolidates the current stand-alone office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority IG, which has just one employee, into the Office of Personnel Management, thus eliminating unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy but continuing the vital audit and oversight capacity of both agencies. In total, three existing small IGs' offices would be consolidated into the IG offices of major departments and two smaller IG offices would be consolidated into one office. Currently, Mr. President, the Offices of Inspectors General are required by law to provide semiannual reports to Congress. To increase the value of these reports, I am reducing this requirement to a single annual report and streamlining the information presented. In this way, Congress can focus on high-risk areas before they get worse and before the problems become more difficult to solve. Mr. President, the inspectors general have made very valuable contributions to the efficient operation of the Federal Government. Their record, however, is not without blemish. For example, the community's record was tarnished by the activities of the inspector general at the Department of Treasury. After an extensive investigation, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found this particular IG violated Federal contract laws in her award of two noncompetitive, sole source contracts. These actions not only wasted thousands of dollars but also shook the confidence of Congress, the agency, and the public in the IG's ability to operate with the highest degree of integrity. It was extremely disturbing to find that this inspector general was herself guilty of wasting resources and abusing the public trust. At the conclusion of our investigation, one could not help but wonder, who is watching the watchdogs? Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that in my view, problems like the ones we uncovered in the Treasury Department are very unusual. They are not characteristic of the IG community. They are not widespread. However, because the inspectors general are the very officials in the Government responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse, they should be held to the very highest ethical standards. Even one example of impropriety is cause for concern. To increase accountability, my legislation requires independent external reviews of each IG office every 3 years. It gives each office the flexibility to choose the most efficient method of review, but it does require that the watchdogs themselves submit to oversight by a qualified third party. This provision is intended to help ensure public confidence in the management and the efficiency of the IG offices and will provide valuable guidance to Congress in fulfilling our oversight responsibilities. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the National Commission on the Separation of Powers has endorsed my recommendation that such an independent, external review be conducted of each IG office. The Commission is a bipartisan committee sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and includes among its members former Senator Howard Baker, former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, former U.S. Attorney William Barr, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and former Director of Central Intelligence William Webster. I am very proud that my proposal has been endorsed by such an esteemed organization. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents a major step toward improving the effectiveness, the independence, and the accountability of the inspectors general program. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to strengthen and improve the inspectors general program as we approach the next century. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1999. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Roth, Grassley, and Bond, who have demonstrated unparalleled leadership on IG issues in the Senate. Indeed, Senator Roth is one of the architects of the inspector general law, having advocated its creation in 1978 and, in 1982, having introduced legislation that created IGs in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and the Treasury. In such distinguished company, I am confident that my legislation hits the mark of improving an already invaluable program. As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate has been the seemingly never-ending fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. We have all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads built to nowhere. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers, but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, in some cases forcing cutbacks in the delivery of vital Government services. Over the past 2 years in my capacity as the subcommittee's chairman, I have seen disturbing fraud and waste firsthand in a wide variety of programs. Last year, for example, the subcommittee held several hearings to shine a spotlight on the massive fraud in the Medicare Program. To cite just one example of the subcommittee's findings, our investigation revealed that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies. These companies provided absolutely no services to our senior citizens at all. Indeed, the address listed by one such company did not even exist, and if it had existed, it would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport. The fraud we uncovered was stunning. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year, diverting scarce resources from the elderly and legitimate health care providers in a program already under enormous financial strain. The Medicare fraud investigation and others like it were undertaken by my subcommittee working hand in hand with the inspectors general for a variety of Federal agencies. The inspectors general are charged with identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs administered by the agencies they monitor. Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the IG Act, the law that Congress passed to create these guardians of the public purse. As we recognize this important milestone, it is important for Congress to take a close look at the IG system. We must build on its strengths and remedy its weaknesses. Over the past 21 years, the inspector general community has grown from 12 in 1978 to 58 inspectors general today. Offices of Inspectors General receive more than a billion dollars in annual funding and employ over 12,000 auditors, criminal investigators, and support personnel. Each Office of Inspector General shoulders tremendous responsibilities and is given considerable power to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal programs. By and large, the IG community has performed in an outstanding manner. IGs have made thousands of recommendations to Congress, ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Inspectors general have conducted investigations that have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars from companies and individuals who have defrauded the Federal Government. The inspectors general have a demonstrated record of success over the past 20 years. But as with all Government entities, we must ensure that the IG community is as well-managed, accountable, and effective as possible. IGs are public watchdogs, but they, too, must be watched. With these principles in mind and drawing on my extensive work with the inspectors general over the past 2 years, I am today introducing legislation to improve the accountability, independence, and efficiency of the inspectors general program. The legislation I am introducing is designed to increase the accountability of inspectors general while retaining and, in some aspects, strengthening the provisions in law that guarantee their independence from the agencies they oversee. My bill establishes a renewable 9-year term of office for each of the inspectors general who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Currently, Presidential IGs serve for an indeterminate term. The IG community has testified that having a fixed term of office would provide them with the assurances they need to be able to perform their vital but, in some cases, unpopular oversight responsibilities in a more independent environment. The 9-year term also would enhance IG autonomy because it would extend beyond two Presidential administrations. There has been considerable turnover in some of the IG positions, and the establishment of a fixed term would also encourage inspectors general to serve for longer periods of time, thus, adding experience to the IG community. Finally, by providing a defined term of service, an appropriate framework is provided for the evaluation of the performance of each IG to determine if re-appointment is warranted. Thus, Mr. President, the 9-year term I am proposing would both enhance the independence of the IGs while improving their accountability. My legislation also takes steps to streamline the IG offices themselves, making them more efficient and flexible, by consolidating existing offices and by reducing the frequency with which IGs must prepare and file resource-intensive reports. Some of the IGs' offices that exist today are very small, with just a handful of employees. They could be made more efficient and effective by transferring their functions to larger IG offices that oversee similar programs. For example, my legislation consolidates the current stand-alone office of the Federal Labor Relations Authority IG, which has just one employee, into the Office of Personnel Management, thus eliminating unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy but continuing the vital audit and oversight capacity of both agencies. In total, three existing small IGs' offices would be consolidated into the IG offices of major departments and two smaller IG offices would be consolidated into one office. Currently, Mr. President, the Offices of Inspectors General are required by law to provide semiannual reports to Congress. To increase the value of these reports, I am reducing this requirement to a single annual report and streamlining the information presented. In this way, Congress can focus on high-risk areas before they get worse and before the problems become more difficult to solve. Mr. President, the inspectors general have made very valuable contributions to the efficient operation of the Federal Government. Their record, however, is not without blemish. For example, the community's record was tarnished by the activities of the inspector general at the Department of Treasury. After an extensive investigation, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found this particular IG violated Federal contract laws in her award of two noncompetitive, sole source contracts. These actions not only wasted thousands of dollars but also shook the confidence of Congress, the agency, and the public in the IG's ability to operate with the highest degree of integrity. It was extremely disturbing to find that this inspector general was herself guilty of wasting resources and abusing the public trust. At the conclusion of our investigation, one could not help but wonder, who is watching the watchdogs? Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that in my view, problems like the ones we uncovered in the Treasury Department are very unusual. They are not characteristic of the IG community. They are not widespread. However, because the inspectors general are the very officials in the Government responsible for combating waste, fraud, and abuse, they should be held to the very highest ethical standards. Even one example of impropriety is cause for concern. To increase accountability, my legislation requires independent external reviews of each IG office every 3 years. It gives each office the flexibility to choose the most efficient method of review, but it does require that the watchdogs themselves submit to oversight by a qualified third party. This provision is intended to help ensure public confidence in the management and the efficiency of the IG offices and will provide valuable guidance to Congress in fulfilling our oversight responsibilities. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the National Commission on the Separation of Powers has endorsed my recommendation that such an independent, external review be conducted of each IG office. The Commission is a bipartisan committee sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and includes among its members former Senator Howard Baker, former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, former U.S. Attorney William Barr, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and former Director of Central Intelligence William Webster. I am very proud that my proposal has been endorsed by such an esteemed organization. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents a major step toward improving the effectiveness, the independence, and the accountability of the inspectors general program. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to strengthen and improve the inspectors general program as we approach the next century. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 870 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services on Seapower be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on ship acquisition programs and policy.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 2 p.m. on the technology administration FY/2000 budget.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, in open session, to review the readiness of the United States Navy and Marines Operating Forces.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests & Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, for purposes of conducting a hearing Subcommittee on Forests & Public Lands Management hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of the oversight hearing is to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding signed by multiple agencies regarding the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee On Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 3 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: ``Privacy in the digital age: discussion of issues surrounding the internet.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on April 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on S. 746, The Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a Hearing.