Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. This legislation will help States and local schools to pursue innovative efforts to improve K-12 education. I commend my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator Wyden, for bringing forth this legislation. Senator Wyden has very effectively demolished the myths about this legislation. The fact is, the goal of this legislation is to improve--to improve the education that we are providing to kids all over this country. It is that simple. The legislation would accomplish that goal by extending educational flexibility to all 50 States. The public schools in this country have made an immeasurable contribution to the success of our society and our Nation. We need to assure that future generations of Americans receive the same excellent public education that many of us were so fortunate to receive while we were growing up. Unfortunately, as the Federal Government has imposed an alarming number of well-intended regulations on our public schools, we have seen a decline in the overall achievements of our students in our public school systems. I am very proud of the progress that Maine schools have made in improving the performance of our students through a challenging curriculum. For example, Maine students rank highly in the National Assessment of Education Progress tests. This achievement reflects the efforts of the Maine Department of Education, our teachers, our principals, our school boards, our State's elementary and secondary schools, and the University of Maine, to design and use challenging statewide learning results. The NAEP test results show that the efforts in Maine are in fact succeeding. They show that our K-12 education system can produce high- achieving students when the standards, curriculum, and expectations are supported and designed by those closest to our schools. The process that the State of Maine used was a burdensome one. It required seeking individual waivers from the Federal Department of Education. It was a lengthy process. It was one that involved a great deal of bureaucratic delay. It is that kind of process that would be changed by this legislation. The fact is, Maine and the rest of our Nation still have a long way to go to improve the education of our students. America holds dear the tradition of State and local control of education. The basic responsibility for improving student achievement lies with the States, not the Federal Government. Indeed, perhaps a better name for this legislation would be ``The Return to Local Control Education Act.'' I believe that all of us, in all of our States, are trying to meet the challenge of greater student achievement. But our State administrators need help from the Federal Government. They do not need more dictates. They do not need more regulation. The Ed-Flex bill provides some of that help by reducing Federal intrusion into the local control of schools. How will this legislation help? Let's look at the role of the Federal Government. Over the last 30 years, the Federal Government has layered new programs on top of old ones that themselves are not meeting their goals. This has been done with a blind commitment to the belief that yet another program devised in Washington will somehow reverse the decline in educational achievement. We spend over $10 billion a year to support elementary and secondary education. This Federal money is spent through so many different programs that we can't even get an accurate count of how many there are. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service estimates range from 550 to 750 separate Federal education programs. Each of these programs comes with its own objectives, statutory requirements, and administrative regulations. Collectively, they create a huge administrative burden on local schools. Indeed, while the Federal Government funds only 7 percent of our public education system, it is responsible for 50 percent of the schools' paperwork. By passing the Education Flexibility Act, we will allow States and local school districts the flexibility they need to pursue creative and innovative approaches in using Federal funds. And the Federal dollars that they do receive will become a genuine force for education improvement. Even more important, the bill will afford States and communities the flexibility that they need to craft local solutions. Instead of struggling to make programs designed in Washington fit local needs, States and localities will have the freedom to make the changes that they know are needed in each individual school. Because, as the Senator from Oregon put it very well, the schools in an urban environment may be very different in their needs from a school in a rural community. The Ed-Flex Act addresses the need for change within our public schools. It will provide a way for State and local education agencies to be freed from the multitude of Federal statutes and regulations that prevent them from breaking out of the Federal education mold and creating their own exciting programs. Expanding the opportunity for Ed- Flex to every State gives our school boards, teachers, parents, and State officials the opportunity to experiment and innovate, to chart a new path for better schools, and to provide Congress with the information it needs to help promote rather than hinder educational improvement. In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I would also like to clarify that I don't think Senator Kennedy deliberately gave me his cold from the hearing yesterday so I would be less effective in debating him today, despite the rumor to the contrary. With that, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. The bill establishes a guaranteed loan program for small businesses in order to remediate existing computer systems or to purchase new Year 2000 compliant equipment. The loan program would be modeled after the Small Business Administration's popular 7(a) loan program, which has provided thousands of small businesses funding to grow their operations. Many small businesses are having difficulty determining how they will be affected by the millennium bug and what they should do about it. Many of them face not only technological but also severe financial challenges in becoming Y2K-compliant. This legislation will help provide peace of mind to the small business community throughout the nation, which we must help prepare now for the coming crisis. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act would encourage business to focus on Year 2000 computer problems before they are upon us. A successful program being operated in my State underscores the benefits to such forethought. Through the efforts of the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program funded through the National Institutes of Science and Technology, small businesses have been successful in addressing their Y2K problems. With the use of an assessment tool, the Maine MEP is able to provide small business owners road maps for addressing critical Y2K issues concerning accounting systems, computerized production equipment, environmental management systems, and supplier vulnerabilities. Once the Maine MEP completes an assessment of technical Y2K problems, it instructs the small business owner on how to apply for a loan from the Small Business Administration. As it turns out, this step is crucial. Small business owners have commented that, while they need help in determining their Y2K exposure, it is just as important to have a place to turn for funding so that they can take action to correct possible problems. Because businesses often do not budget for Y2K problems, it is vital to give businesses some assurance that they will be able to borrow the funds necessary to remediate their systems. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act does exactly that. My home State of Maine has over 35,000 small businesses, which were responsible for all of the net new jobs created in our State from 1992 through 1996. With their diversity and innovation, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the engine fueling job growth. Mr. President, by their very definition entrepreneurs are risk managers. In the years that I have been working with small businesses, I am aware of countless experiences where the entrepreneurial spirit has propelled business owners to overcome major obstacles to succeed. With the financial assistance that this new SBA loan program will offer, it is my expectation that small businesses will indeed succeed in squashing their Y2K bug.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``The Third Anniversary of the Telecom Act: A Competition and Antitrust Review.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct its organizational meeting for the 106th Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Public Health, be authorized to meet for a hearing on Antimicrobial Resistance: Solutions to a Growing Public Health Threat during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for FY2000 for the U.S. Forest Service.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for FY2000 for the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999, to conduct a hearing on financial services legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 25, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony from the unified commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements in review of the fiscal year 2000 defense authorized request and future years defense program.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 25, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on U.S. policy regarding Kosovo.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 25, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who are sponsoring the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 which would afford states important exemptions from burdensome federal regulations. Indeed, the bill would expand a 12-state demonstration program to all 50 states, and would allow for the waiver of statutes and regulations that hinder State and local educational improvement plans. I thank my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator Wyden, for their leadership on this innovative legislation. It is, indeed, a landmark bill that I am confident will improve the performance of our Nation's public schools by placing the control back where it belongs-- in the hands of teachers, parents, school board members and the administrators of local school districts. I am delighted to join my colleagues as an original cosponsor of this legislation, because I am confident that it will improve the academic performance of students in my home State of Maine and in States across the Nation. Our Nation's public school system is the foundation upon which the American dream is built. Time and time again, we see that education is the difference between poverty and prosperity, ignorance and understanding. There is no doubt that America's public schools are in need of a boost, but not one that is dictated by the Federal Government in a ``one size fits all'' approach. Rather, we need a boost for our Nation's schools; a boost conceived of and built from the bottom up by the people who know best what our students need; namely, educators and administrators at the State and local levels. The Ed-Flex plan does just that by cutting the bureaucratic strings that now entangle Federal education dollars. It would allow local communities to spend Federal dollars as they think best, as long as their programs accomplish the objectives of Federal guidelines. In short, the Ed-Flex bill will help our public schools attain and, indeed, in many cases exceed Federal standards without resorting to a ``Washington knows best'' approach. I note, Mr. President, that this approach is totally contrary to that proposed by the Clinton administration. The President wants to be the Nation's principal. He wants to decide everything from promotion policies to curriculum standards. That is not the approach that this bill takes. Rather, this bill reflects our philosophy that those who are most committed and best able to improve education are found at the State and local level--our parents, our school board leaders, our principals, and our teachers. In Maine, our students rank near the top in many national tests. The State Department of Education, the State's elementary and secondary schools and the University of Maine have worked diligently to design and use challenging statewide learning standards. National test results show that these efforts have been successful. Even more important, they demonstrate that a strong K-12 education system designed and supported by State and local officials, school board members, teachers, and parents can produce first-rate students. And, indeed, I am very proud of the accomplishments of Maine schools. Dozens of schools across the country have participated in the current Ed-Flex Partnership Program. They have proven that test scores and learning increase most rapidly when guided by locally designed programs, not by Federal ones. We need to expand the Ed-Flex Program so that students in every State can reap these same benefits. Public schools in Maine and across the Nation have made a good-faith effort to repair the deteriorated foundation of our system of public education. There is, however, much more that needs to be done. Our States cannot do it alone. They need assistance but not the dictates of Washington. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 directly addresses the need for change within public schools by putting the power to plan, brainstorm, build, and implement back in the hands of State and local communities. Expanding the opportunity for the Ed-Flex Program will give every State the chance to experiment and innovate and to chart a path for better schools. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important initiative. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for not to exceed 8 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues' attention to the celebration of National TRIO Day on February 27th. The 99th Congress designated the last Saturday in February as the day to celebrate these very important and successful federal programs designed to raise the educational aspirations of students by providing services that help them overcome social, cultural, and other barriers to success in higher education. Currently, two thousand colleges, universities, and community agencies sponsor TRIO programs. More than 780,000 lower-income middle school, high school, and adult students benefit from the services of such TRIO programs as Talent Search, Upward Bound, and Student Support Services. Not only do students personally benefit from their participation in higher education, but also our nation benefits from a better-educated population motivated to serve their communities and their country. My home state of Maine has one of the country's lowest rates of participation in postsecondary education. The fifteen TRIO programs operating in Maine are working successfully to increase this number. Each year, these programs serve 6,000 students, building their aspirations for higher education and providing them the counseling, confidence, and academic support they need to pursue higher education. Father James Nadeau, a native of my hometown in Aroostook County, is a graduate of the Bowdoin College Upward Bound program. His story tells why the TRIO programs are so important. His parents did not have the opportunity to pursue an education beyond the eighth grade. Father Jim's participation in Upward Bound changed his life and opened up a world of opportunity to him. Beginning in 1977, Father Jim spent three summers enrolled in Upward Bound and then attended Dartmouth College and studied in France and Scotland. Subsequently, he studied for five years at the Gregorian University in Rome and received two graduate degrees in theology. His ministry has spanned from Mother Teresa in Calcutta to school children in Portland, Maine and continues to affect lives all over the world. He is an excellent role model for the youth of Maine and remains a terrific example of the success of the TRIO programs. There are many similar stories of TRIO graduates in all professions and walks of life. These are stories of successful, educated individuals who were introduced by a TRIO program to the endless possibilities that become attainable through education. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit TRIO programs in their states as I have done in Maine. You will see for yourselves why these programs are vital to our efforts to promote equal educational opportunity for all our citizens.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on February 22, 1999, at 1 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of my principal cosponsor, Senator Inouye, and myself, I am proud to submit a resolution requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (``VFW''), which will be celebrating its centennial in September of this year. We are pleased to be joined by 56 of our colleagues in support of this measure. As a member of the VFW Ladies Auxiliary post in Caribou, ME, and as the daughter of a World War II veteran who was wounded twice in combat, I am honored to lead the charge for this worthwhile legislation. This measure is intended to pay special tribute to all members of the VFW, past and present, who pledged their honor and their lives to defend the United States and who fought bravely in foreign lands so that we as a nation might live in freedom. These are our true American patriots, for they have demonstrated a profound commitment to the principles of our Founding Fathers not in mere words, but in their deeds. When their country called, they answered, and they fought to keep the American way of life safe and secure. As an organization, the Veterans of Foreign Wars traces its roots back to 1899. Veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection returned home from intense fighting abroad and were greeted with a hero's welcome. Over time, the memory of wartime sacrifice faded in the minds of many Americans, but not for the men who carried with them permanent battle scars, prolonged illnesses, and other grim reminders of war. Absent a single Government agency possessing responsibility for veterans, and facing neglect, these brave men banded together to establish a handful of local organizations intended to help secure medical care and pensions for their military service. These original foreign service organizations, located in Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, gradually grew in number and influence and in 1914 came to be known collectively as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Mr. President, it was several years later, on June 24, 1921, when the VFW's chapter in my home State of Maine was chartered. Today, there are 84 VFW posts in Maine to which over 16,000 veterans belong. Those small groups of veterans who organized in 1899 have today grown to over 2 million strong. VFW members have fought and died in every war, conflict, and military intervention in which the United States has been engaged during this century. From factory workers to occupants of the White House, the VFW members and its Ladies Auxiliary have come to represent a cross section of American society, and each new generation of veterans has brought renewed strength and dedication to the VFW's founding principles. As the 21st century approaches, the VFW's members continue to live by the organization's creed of ``Honor the dead by helping the living.'' They do so by representing the interests of veterans across the Nation through an established network of trained service officers who, at no charge, help millions of veterans and their dependents secure the educational benefits, disability compensation, pension, and health care services that they are rightfully entitled to as a result of their distinguished service to our Country. The VFW also has a long and proud tradition of supporting troops deployed overseas. From letter-writing campaigns in World War I, to ``Welcome home'' rallies after the Persian Gulf war, to providing care packages, to USO shows and, more recently, to providing free telephone cards enabling servicemen and women to call loved ones from their posts in Bosnia, the VFW continues to provide comfort and a touch of home to those men and women stationed far away. The endeavors of the VFW, however, go well beyond the realm of ``veterans helping veterans.'' In fact, service to the broader American community has always been a pillar of the VFW foundation. Through the VFW's Community Service Program, members of its 10,000 posts serve local communities, States, and the Nation with all of the integrity, ingenuity, and loyalty that have characterized the organization since its inception. During the past program year, for example, the VFW, working side by side with its Ladies Auxiliary, contributed nearly 13 million hours of volunteer service and donated nearly $55 million to a variety of community projects. Commitment to worthy causes such as the March of Dimes, the Keep America Beautiful campaign, and many other volunteer organizations also continues to be a hallmark of service among VFW members. The promotion of patriotism is another hallmark of the VFW's history. Since the beginning of its Americanization Committee in 1921, the VFW has actively taught traditional values to Americans both young and old. Today, teaching respect for the flag is a primary activity, as is educating children in the classroom about the critical role that veterans have played throughout our history. The interests of today's youth are also met by VFW posts around the Nation through active support for drug prevention programs, the Boy Scouts of America, the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, and sponsorship of competitors in both the Junior and Special Olympics. The VFW has also recently commemorated 50 years of helping high school students attend college. Because of VFW support, in fact, America's young people annually receive more than $2.6 million in scholarships. The VFW deserves public national recognition for these efforts and for its many other contributions to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans and enhancing American society as a whole. Although as a country we can never fully repay the debt we owe to these brave men and women, we can certainly strive to honor the vision which led them into battle to protect the principles America holds dear. We must uphold the memories of their heroic acts with respect, with reverence, and with our heartfelt admiration. By requesting that the U.S. Postal Service issue a commemorative stamp honoring the VFW's 100th anniversary, as was done for its 50th and 75th anniversaries, we can take a small step toward remembering their service and showing our deep appreciation for their unwavering commitment to our country, both in peacetime and in times of conflict. This, I believe, would be a much-deserved tribute to the VFW and its more than 2 million veterans of overseas service. Mr. President, I am very pleased to note that you are a cosponsor of this important measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, the issue now before the Senate may well be the most significant of our public careers. Other than declaring war, it is difficult to imagine a weightier decision that could come before us than whether to remove the President of the United States from office. Our Founders designed impeachment to protect our system of government against officials who lose their moorings in the law or who endanger our most basic institutions. They designed it neither as a popular referendum nor as a mechanism by which--as in parliamentary systems-- the legislature can remove the head of government based on nothing more than a policy difference. Instead, this process is a check upon rogue chief executives, designed equally to remove the politically popular malefactor and to protect the innocent, but unpopular, official. It is a vital, but extraordinary, remedy that should neither be shunned out of political expediency nor invoked for political gain. The question before us is not whether President Clinton's conduct was contemptible or utterly unworthy of the great office he holds. It was. The question before us is whether the President has committed an impeachable offense for which he should be removed from that office. The Framers thought carefully about where to vest the ultimate power to remove a president. They chose the United States Senate. This was not an obvious choice. The power to convict and remove could as easily have been assigned to a court of law, where a jury would apply the law to the facts in the ordinary way. But the Framers gave the power to try impeachments to the Senate. They did so because they recognized that an impeachment trial should not be an ordinary trial, requiring an ordinary application of law to fact. The Framers wanted the Senate to make not only a determination of guilt, but also a judgment about what is best for our nation and its institutions. Throughout this impeachment trial, in order to lessen the ambiguity in this process, I have sought to find a way to allow the Senate to express its view of the facts we have so carefully considered for the past month. The vote we now approach is to convict or acquit. It is a blunt instrument that does not allow me to express clearly my belief that President Clinton willfully lied to a federal grand jury, and that he wrongfully tried to influence testimony and to conceal evidence related to Paula Jones' lawsuit. As this case has been argued in this chamber, I have become convinced that the perjury charges of Article I are not fully substantiated by the record. The President's grand jury testimony is replete with lies, half-truths, and evasions. But significantly, not all evasion is lying, and not all lying is perjury. Even blatantly misleading testimony that all fair-minded people would consider dishonest may not actually constitute perjury, as the law defines it. Time and time again, the attorneys questioning President Clinton before the grand jury--perhaps out of a misguided sense of deference-- neglected to pin him down as he gave nonresponsive, evasive, confusing, or simply absurd responses. The only remedy for imprecise answers is more precise questioning. Unfortunately, this did not occur, and consequently, the record is too murky to require the President's removal based on Article I. The evidence supporting Article II is more convincing. Indeed, the case presented by the House Managers proves to my satisfaction that the President did, in fact, obstruct justice in Paula Jones' civil rights case. While the circumstances surrounding Monica Lewinsky's filing of a false affidavit are unclear, there is no doubt in my mind that the frantic efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job, the retrieval and concealment of gifts under the bed of the President's secretary, and, most egregious, the President's blatant coaching of Betty Currie--not once, but twice--were clear attempts to tamper with witnesses and obstruct justice. Indeed, if I were a juror in an ordinary criminal case, I might very well vote to convict faced with these facts. Nevertheless, I do not think that the President's actions constitute a ``high crime'' or ``misdemeanor'' as contemplated by Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. This is, I readily acknowledge, a judgment that can neither be made nor explained with anything approaching scientific precision. But I can point to two factors that influence my conclusion. First, obstruction of justice is generally more serious in a criminal case, as opposed to a civil case, as it interferes with the effective enforcement of our nation's laws and not solely with the adjudication of private disputes. Consistent with this conclusion, the vast majority of obstruction prosecutions involve underlying criminal actions, and the statutory penalties are more severe in the context of criminal trials. This is not to suggest for a moment that we should tolerate obstruction of justice in civil cases, but only to observe that our legal system treats it as a less serious offense. Second, I believe that for impeachment purposes, obstruction of justice has more ominous implications when the conduct concealed, or the method used to conceal it, poses a threat to our governmental institutions. Neither occurred in this case. Therefore, I will cast my vote not for the current President, but for the presidency. I believe that in order to convict, we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more. In this instance, the claims against the President fail to reach this very high standard. Therefore, albeit reluctantly, I will vote to acquit William Jefferson Clinton on both counts. In voting to acquit the President, I do so with grave misgivings for I do not mean in any way to exonerate this man. He lied under oath; he sought to interfere with the evidence; he tried to influence the testimony of key witnesses. And, while it may not be a crime, he exploited a very young, star-struck employee whom he then proceeded to smear in an attempt to destroy her credibility, her reputation, her life. The President's actions were chillingly similar to the White House's campaign to discredit Kathleen Willey. As much as it troubles me to acquit this President, I cannot do otherwise and remain true to my role as a Senator. To remove a popularly elected president for the first time in our nation's history is an extraordinary action that should be undertaken only when the President's misconduct so injures the fabric of democracy that the Senate is left with no option but to oust the offender from the office the people have entrusted to him. President Clinton has written a shameful and permanent chapter of American history. He alone is responsible for this year of agony that the American people have endured. I do not, however, take solace in the prospect of a censure, nor do I take comfort in the possibility that the President may be prosecuted for his wrongdoing after he leaves office. Rather, I look to the verdict of history to provide the ultimate punishment for this president, a verdict that no public relations gloss or smear campaign can obscure. As Maine's great poet, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, wrote in 1874, ``Whatever hath been written shall remain, nor be erased, nor written o'er again.'' When the history of the Clinton presidency is written, every book will begin with the fact that William Jefferson Clinton was impeached, and that will be not only the ultimate censure but also the final verdict on this sad chapter in our nation's history.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Maine, Senator Snowe, in introducing private relief legislation for Nancy B. Wilson. By way of background, Al Wilson worked for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and he and his wife Edna had two children. In 1945, tragedy stuck the family when Edna suffered a severe mental breakdown and was permanently placed in a mental institution, leaving Al to care for the children. Five years later, Al met Nancy Butler, who immediately began caring for Al's two young children, as well as her son. Nancy took residence with Al and soon began to raise the children as her own. The eldest child has written that Nancy ``is the person who brought me up in place of my biological mother, who was institutionalized. I think of Nancy as my real mother.'' Al and Nancy wanted to get married, but Al was prohibited from divorcing Edna by a Massachusetts state law. The law barred a divorce for reasons of insanity or institutionalization for insanity. The Congressional Research Service confirmed that a ``divorce could not have been granted under Massachusetts law during the 1960's and 1970's solely because one spouse was insane.'' On April 12, 1969, Edna Wilson died. Twenty days later, on May 2, 1969, Nancy and Al were married. Al died of cancer seven months later on December 5, 1969. Nancy had lived with Al for 19 years. Upon turning sixty-four years old on March 21, 1991, Nancy applied to the Social Security Administration for survivor insurance benefits from Al's wage earnings. She was refused benefits based upon the limited term of her legal marriage. According to Social Security regulations, a couple must be married for at least nine months for a spouse to collect survivor benefits. Nancy has exhausted the available legal remedies, taking full advantage of the administrative appeals process. Nancy filed a request for reconsideration and appeared at a hearing before an administrative law judge. On January 28, 1992, the Social Security Administration issued its final decision denying her claim for benefits. The private relief bill we are introducing would allow Nancy to receive widow's benefits from her husband's earnings. Nancy Wilson was, for all practical purposes, married to Al Wilson. She cohabited with him for nineteen years prior to their marriage. She raised his children, allowing him to work and accumulate a Social Security benefit. Nancy and Al were legally prevented from marrying by Massachusetts state law, even though his marriage with his first wife had essentially ended. Mr. President, the unique circumstances of Mrs. Wilson epitomize why Congress has the power to enact private relief legislation. Her situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act. Al and Nancy were prohibited from marrying; clearly they would have if the law allowed them to do so. This unique situation is an exception that will not be repeated. Since their marriage, a no-fault divorce statute has been enacted in Massachusetts, which prevents this situation from occurring again. Mrs. Wilson's case is a compelling one which we believe the Senate should alleviate.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, during National Consumer Protection Week, I am introducing the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, a comprehensive bill designed to stem the rising tide of deceptive mailings that are flooding the mailboxes of the people of Maine and people throughout the country. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of a trio of distinguished Senators in this regard: Senator Cochran, the chairman of the subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction over these types of mailings, who has been a leader in the effort to curtail deceptive mailings and sweepstakes fraud; Senator Levin, who serves as the ranking minority member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and who has played an active role not only in the hearings held last year, but also in introducing his own legislation on this issue, which I am pleased to cosponsor. He has a longstanding interest in curtailing deceptive mailings. I am also pleased to have the support of Senator Durbin, with whom I have worked very closely on many consumer issues. Mr. President, several months ago, prompted by complaints that I have received from my constituents in Maine, I initiated an investigation into sweepstakes fraud and deceptive mailings. Over the course of this investigation, I have seen countless examples of mailings that deceptively promise extravagant prizes in order to entice consumers to make unnecessary and unneeded purchases. Unfortunately, this calculated confusion works far too often. In one particularly egregious example, one deceptive mailing prompted some of its victims to fly to Florida, believing that they then would be the first to claim the grand prize promised in a major sweepstakes. Deceptive mailings take many forms. One such form that I find particularly offensive is ``Government look-alike mailings,'' which appear deceptively like a mailing from a Federal agency or other official entity. An example of such a deceptive mailing was recently sent to me by a woman from Machiasport, ME. The postcard that she received was marked ``Urgent Delivery, a Special Notification of Cash Currently Being Held by the U.S. Government is ready for shipment to you.'' I have blown up a copy of the postcard she received so you can see just how deceptive this mailing was. On the back of the postcard, the consumer was asked to send $9.97 to learn how to receive this cash. Of course, this was not a legitimate mailing from the Federal Government, but simply a ploy used by an unscrupulous individual to trick an unsuspecting consumer into sending money. Mr. President, millions of Americans have received sweepstakes letters that use deceptive marketing ploys to encourage the purchase of magazines and other products. A common tactic is a ``promise'' of winning printed in large type, such as this example: ``You Were Declared One of Our Latest Sweepstakes Winners and You're About to be Paid $833,337 in Cash.'' A constituent of mine from Portland, ME, received this mailing, but, of course, he wasn't really a winner. It takes an awfully sharp eye and very careful scrutiny to notice the very fine print that states that the money is won only ``if you have and return the grand prize-winning number in time.'' Mr. President, thousands of consumers have made very frequent purchases, often of more than $1,000 a year, in response to deceptive sweepstakes mailings. I have heard sad stories from many people who have described personal horror stories caused by these deceptive mailings. Some people have told me of their elderly parents spending $10,000, $20,000, even as much as $60,000 in one case, hoping that their next purchase would result in a large prize. Senior citizens are particularly vulnerable, as they generally trust the statements made by these marketing appeals, particularly if they are pitched by celebrities, or if the mailing appears to be connected or in some way sanctioned by the Federal Government. To increase consumer protections, and to punish those who use such deceptive mailings to prey on our senior citizens, the bill that I am introducing today, along with Senators Cochran, Levin and Durbin, will attack sweepstakes fraud and deceptive mailings on four fronts. First, the bill will prevent fraud and deception by requiring companies to be more honest with the American people when using sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. My legislation would establish new standards for sweepstakes, including clear disclosure. In addition, my legislation would strengthen the law against mailings that mimic Government documents. Mailings could not use any language or device that gives the appearance that the mailing is connected, approved, or endorsed by the Federal Government. Second, this bill provides strong new financial penalties for sending mail that does not comply with these and existing standards. Civil penalties include fines ranging from $50,000 to $2 million would be allowed depending on the number of mailings sent. Third, the bill strengthens Federal law enforcement efforts and makes them more effective by giving the U.S. Postal Inspection Service additional tools to combat these deceptive practices. Fourth, my legislation would preserve the important role the States play in fighting this type of fraud and deception. Our bill would not preempt States and local laws protecting consumers from fraudulent and deceptive mailings. Mr. President, hundreds of millions of these promotional materials are sent out each year to consumers across the country. By design, they are meant to confuse their recipients and to trick them into spending money needlessly under the false pretense that doing so will earn them huge rewards. As the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I will shortly be holding hearings on this issue in the coming months to document the nature and extent of the problem and how these deceptive mailings affect Americans, particularly our senior citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues, particularly the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Levin, who has been such a leader in this area. It is my hope that Congress will enact the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Improvement Act to increase consumer protections, to improve law enforcement efforts, and to provide effective penalties for those who deceive American consumers. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time to the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, during National Consumer Protection Week, I am introducing the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, a comprehensive bill designed to stem the rising tide of deceptive mailings that are flooding the mailboxes of the people of Maine and people throughout the country. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of a trio of distinguished Senators in this regard: Senator Cochran, the chairman of the subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction over these types of mailings, who has been a leader in the effort to curtail deceptive mailings and sweepstakes fraud; Senator Levin, who serves as the ranking minority member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and who has played an active role not only in the hearings held last year, but also in introducing his own legislation on this issue, which I am pleased to cosponsor. He has a longstanding interest in curtailing deceptive mailings. I am also pleased to have the support of Senator Durbin, with whom I have worked very closely on many consumer issues. Mr. President, several months ago, prompted by complaints that I have received from my constituents in Maine, I initiated an investigation into sweepstakes fraud and deceptive mailings. Over the course of this investigation, I have seen countless examples of mailings that deceptively promise extravagant prizes in order to entice consumers to make unnecessary and unneeded purchases. Unfortunately, this calculated confusion works far too often. In one particularly egregious example, one deceptive mailing prompted some of its victims to fly to Florida, believing that they then would be the first to claim the grand prize promised in a major sweepstakes. Deceptive mailings take many forms. One such form that I find particularly offensive is ``Government look-alike mailings,'' which appear deceptively like a mailing from a Federal agency or other official entity. An example of such a deceptive mailing was recently sent to me by a woman from Machiasport, ME. The postcard that she received was marked ``Urgent Delivery, a Special Notification of Cash Currently Being Held by the U.S. Government is ready for shipment to you.'' I have blown up a copy of the postcard she received so you can see just how deceptive this mailing was. On the back of the postcard, the consumer was asked to send $9.97 to learn how to receive this cash. Of course, this was not a legitimate mailing from the Federal Government, but simply a ploy used by an unscrupulous individual to trick an unsuspecting consumer into sending money. Mr. President, millions of Americans have received sweepstakes letters that use deceptive marketing ploys to encourage the purchase of magazines and other products. A common tactic is a ``promise'' of winning printed in large type, such as this example: ``You Were Declared One of Our Latest Sweepstakes Winners and You're About to be Paid $833,337 in Cash.'' A constituent of mine from Portland, ME, received this mailing, but, of course, he wasn't really a winner. It takes an awfully sharp eye and very careful scrutiny to notice the very fine print that states that the money is won only ``if you have and return the grand prize-winning number in time.'' Mr. President, thousands of consumers have made very frequent purchases, often of more than $1,000 a year, in response to deceptive sweepstakes mailings. I have heard sad stories from many people who have described personal horror stories caused by these deceptive mailings. Some people have told me of their elderly parents spending $10,000, $20,000, even as much as $60,000 in one case, hoping that their next purchase would result in a large prize. Senior citizens are particularly vulnerable, as they generally trust the statements made by these marketing appeals, particularly if they are pitched by celebrities, or if the mailing appears to be connected or in some way sanctioned by the Federal Government. To increase consumer protections, and to punish those who use such deceptive mailings to prey on our senior citizens, the bill that I am introducing today, along with Senators Cochran, Levin and Durbin, will attack sweepstakes fraud and deceptive mailings on four fronts. First, the bill will prevent fraud and deception by requiring companies to be more honest with the American people when using sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. My legislation would establish new standards for sweepstakes, including clear disclosure. In addition, my legislation would strengthen the law against mailings that mimic Government documents. Mailings could not use any language or device that gives the appearance that the mailing is connected, approved, or endorsed by the Federal Government. Second, this bill provides strong new financial penalties for sending mail that does not comply with these and existing standards. Civil penalties include fines ranging from $50,000 to $2 million would be allowed depending on the number of mailings sent. Third, the bill strengthens Federal law enforcement efforts and makes them more effective by giving the U.S. Postal Inspection Service additional tools to combat these deceptive practices. Fourth, my legislation would preserve the important role the States play in fighting this type of fraud and deception. Our bill would not preempt States and local laws protecting consumers from fraudulent and deceptive mailings. Mr. President, hundreds of millions of these promotional materials are sent out each year to consumers across the country. By design, they are meant to confuse their recipients and to trick them into spending money needlessly under the false pretense that doing so will earn them huge rewards. As the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I will shortly be holding hearings on this issue in the coming months to document the nature and extent of the problem and how these deceptive mailings affect Americans, particularly our senior citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues, particularly the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Levin, who has been such a leader in this area. It is my hope that Congress will enact the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Improvement Act to increase consumer protections, to improve law enforcement efforts, and to provide effective penalties for those who deceive American consumers. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time to the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Roth, and Moynihan in introducing this historic, bipartisan initiative that will help tear down the barriers that prevent Americans with disabilities who want to work from reaching their full potential and achieving economic independence. Eight million Americans receive more than $50 billion a year in cash disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability programs. While surveys show that the overwhelming majority of adults with disabilities want to work, fewer than \1/2\ of 1 percent of them actually do. Advances in medicine and technology coupled with tougher civil rights laws have made it possible for more and more people with physical and mental disabilities to enter the workforce. These are people who genuinely want to work. They have the skills and talents necessary to be productive members of the workforce. But they face a Catch-22. If they leave the disability rolls for a job, they risk losing the Medicare and Medicaid benefits that made it possible for them to enter the workforce in the first place. Moreover, many of these individuals' very lives depend on the prescription drugs, technology, personal assistance services, and medical care they receive. Mr. President, no one should have to make a choice between a job and health care. The legislation we are introducing today will create and fund new options for States to encourage them to allow people with disabilities who enter the workforce to buy into the Medicaid program, so they can continue to receive the prescription drugs, personal assistance services, and medical care upon which they depend. It will also allow workers leaving the social Security Disability Insurance program to extend their Medicare coverage for ten years. This is tremendously important since many people returning to work after having been on SSDI either work part time and are therefore not eligible for employer-based insurance, or they work in jobs that do not offer health insurance. Allowing these disabled individuals to maintain their Medicare coverage will serve as a tremendous incentive for them to return to the workforce. Other provisions of the legislation we are introducing today incorporate a more ``user-friendly'' approach in programs providing job training and placement assistance to individuals with disabilities who wants to work. Our bill gives disabled SSI and SSDI beneficiaries greater consumer choice by creating a ``ticket'' that enables them to choose whether they want to go to a public or private provider of vocational rehabilitation services. The bill also provides grants to States and organizations to help connect people with disabilities with appropriate services, and funds demonstrations and studies to better understand policies that will encourage and enable work. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is an investment in human potential that promises tremendous return. By ensuring that Americans with disabilities have access to affordable health insurance, we are removing the major barrier between them and the workplace. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 will both encourage and enable Americans with disabilities to be full participants in our nation's workforce and growing economy, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in introducing this Patients' Bill of Rights, which is the product of more than a year's worth of intensive work and negotiations by the Senate Republican Health Care Task Force on which I serve. This comprehensive legislation has three major purposes. First, it will protect patients' rights and hold HMOs accountable for providing the care they have promised. Second, it will expand consumer choice and access to affordable care. And third, it will improve health care quality and outcomes. Mr. President, there is a growing unease across our country about changes in how we receive our health care. People worry that if they or their loved ones become seriously ill, their HMO will deny them coverage and force them to accept either inadequate care or financial ruin--or perhaps both. They feel that vital decisions affecting their lives will be made, not by a supportive family doctor, but by an unfeeling bureaucracy. The American people, known for taking charge of their destiny, feel increasingly powerless about their health care. Our bill will ensure that medical decisions remain in the hands of patients and physicians, not HMO accountants and trial lawyers. All of us agree that medically-necessary patient care should not be sacrificed to the bottom line. However, according to a 1997 study by Lewin, every one percent increase in health care premiums results in as many as 400,000 uninsured Americans. I have therefore been alarmed by reports that American businesses everywhere--from large multinational corporations to the corner store--are facing huge hikes in health insurance premiums in 1999, ranging from about 8 percent on average, to 20 percent or more. This is a remarkable contrast to the last few years, when premiums rose less than 2 or 3 percent, if at all. We are engaged in an extremely delicate balancing act as we attempt to respond to concerns about quality, without resorting to unduly burdensome federal controls and mandates that will further drive up costs, causing thousands of Americans to lose their coverage and pushing health insurance further out of reach for many uninsured Americans. Our Patients' Bill of Rights does not pre-empt, but rather builds upon the good work that states have done in the area of patients' rights and protections. Congress agreed that states should have primary responsibility for the regulation of health insurance when it passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. And, as someone who has overseen a Bureau of Insurance in state government, I think state regulators have done a good job of responding to the needs and concerns of their citizens. For instance, at my last count, 44 states had passed laws prohibiting ``gag clauses'' that restrict communications between patients and their doctors, and the remaining six had bills pending in their legislatures. States acted without any mandate or prod from Washington to protect consumers. Moreover, one size does not fit all, and what may be appropriate for one state may not be necessary in another. Florida, for instance, provides for direct access to a dermatologist, which is understandable, given the high rate of skin cancer in that state. But in a state like Maine this may not be so important. So why does Congress need to act? The answer is that federal law prohibits states from regulating the self-funded, employer-sponsored health plans that cover 48 million Americans. Our bill extends many of the same rights and protections to these individuals and their families that Americans in state-regulated plans already enjoy. For the first time, they will be guaranteed the right to talk freely and openly with their doctors about their treatment options without being subject to ``gag clauses'' that limit communications. They will be guaranteed coverage for emergency room care that a ``prudent layperson'' would consider medically necessary without prior authorization from their health plan. They will be able to see their OB-GYN or pediatrician without a referral from their plan's ``gatekeeper,'' and they will have the option of seeing a doctor who is not a part of their HMO's network. They will also have some assurance of continuity of care if their health plan terminates its contract with their doctor or hospital. Moreover, all patients will be given the right to review their medical records and will have added protections to ensure that this information will be kept confidential. Finally, insurers will be prohibited from collecting or using predictive genetic information about a patient to deny coverage or set premium rates. Mr. President, the states are way ahead of the federal government in the area of insurance reform, and the State of Maine has already enacted many of these same consumer rights and protections--a ban on gag clauses, a prudent layperson definition for emergency care, and direct access to OB/GYNs. Our bill would extend these and other rights to the nearly 220,000 Maine citizens in health plans that are not subject to state regulation and who currently do not enjoy these protections. A key provision of our bill would give all 125 million Americans in employer-sponsored plans assurance that they will get the care that they need, when they need it. This includes 535,735 people in Maine who are in fully-insured ERISA plans. For the first time, these individuals will be entitled to clear and complete information about their health plan--about what it does and does not cover, about any cost-sharing requirements, and about the plan's providers. Helping patients understand their coverage before they need to use it will help to avoid coverage disputes later. The goal of any patient protection legislation should be to solve disputes about coverage up from, when the care is needed. Not months, or even years later, in a court room. Our bill would accomplish this goal by creating both an internal and external review process. First, patients or doctors who are unhappy with an HMO's decision could appeal it internally through a review conducted by individuals with ``appropriate expertise'' who were not involved in the initial decision. Moreover, this review would have to be conducted by a physician if the coverage denial is based on a determination that the service is not medically necessary or is an experimental treatment. Patients could expect results from this review within 30 days, or 72 hours in cases when delay poses a serious risk to the patient's life or health. Patients turned down by this internal review would then have the right to a free, external review by medical experts who are completely independent of their health plan. This review must be completed within thirty days--and even faster in a medical emergency or when delay would be detrimental to the patient's health. Moreover, the decision of these outside reviewers is binding on the health plan, but not on the patient. If the patient is not satisfied, they retain the right to sue in federal or state court for attorneys' fees, court costs, the value of the benefit and injunctive relief. Our bill differs from the Democrats' bill in a fundamental respect: it places treatment decisions in the hands of doctors, not lawyers. If your HMO denies you treatment that your doctor believes is medically necessary, you should not have to resort to a costly and lengthy court battle to get the care you need. After all, doesn't it make more sense to put medical care in the hands of doctors, not lawyers? You should not have a resort to hiring a lawyer and filing an expensive lawsuit to get the treatment. You just can't sue your way to quality health care. The purpose of our bill is to solve problems up-front when the care is needed, not months or even years later after the harm has occurred. According to the GAO, it takes an average of 33 months to resolve malpractice cases. One case in the study took 11 years. This does absolutely nothing to ensure a patient's right to timely and appropriate care. Moreover, patients only receive 43 cents out of every dollar awarded in malpractice cases. The rest winds up in the pockets of the trial lawyers and administrators of the court and insurance systems. Finally, more lawsuits are certain to mean higher health care costs. According to the Barents Group of KPMG Peat Marwick, increased lawsuits could drive up premiums as much as 8.6 percent, forcing businesses to pay $94.1 billion ($1,284 per worker) in extra premiums over five years. Close to two million Americans could lose their health insurance next year as increased costs force many employers to eliminate coverage altogether, or to pass on higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs to employees who can't afford them. Last fall I met with a group of Maine employers who expressed their serious concerns about the Democrats' proposal to expand liability for health plans and employers. The Assistant Director for Human Resources at Bowdoin College talked about how moving to a self-funded, ERISA plan enabled them to continue to offer affordable coverage to Bowdoin employees when premiums for their fully-insured plan skyrocketed in the late 1980s. Since they self-funded, they have actually been able to lower premiums for their employees, while at the same time, enhance their benefit designs with such features as well-baby care, free annual physicals, and prescription drug cards with low copayments. They told me that the Democrats' proposal to expand liability seriously jeopardizes their ability to offer affordable coverage for their employees. Similar concerns were expressed by the Maine Municipal Association, L.L. Bean, Bath Iron Works, and others. Mr. President, our bill also contains important provisions to improve health care quality and outcomes for all Americans. For example, I am particularly pleased that our bill contains the proposal introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, that prohibits insurers from discriminating on the basis of predictive genetic information. Genetic testing holds tremendous promise for individuals who have a genetic predisposition to beat cancer and other diseases and conditions with a genetic link. However, this promise is significantly threatened when insurance companies use the results of such testing to deny or limit coverage to consumers on the basis of genetic information. In addition to the potentially devastating consequences of being denied health insurance on the basis of genetic information, the fear of discrimination may discourage individuals who might benefit from having this information from ever getting tested. And finally, our bill will make health insurance more affordable by allowing self-employed individuals to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums beginning not in 2003, as in current law, but next year. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is a matter of basic equity, and it will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working, Americans. It will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. Mr. President, I believe that our plan strikes the right balance as we effectively address concerns about quality and choice without resorting to unduly burdensome federal controls and mandates that would further drive up costs and cause some Americans to lose their health insurance altogether. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this proposal.