Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of the Coverdell amendment No. 2451 pending to the tobacco legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 5. I further ask that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Smith of New Hampshire for 30 minutes; Senator Cleland for 10 minutes; Senator Wellstone for 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes tomorrow at 9:30 a.m., there will be a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco legislation, with several amendments still pending. It is hoped that short time agreements can be reached on these amendments so that remaining amendments to this important bill may be offered and debated. As a reminder to all Members, a cloture motion was filed by the minority leader to the tobacco committee substitute. Under rule XXII, Senators have until 1 p.m. on Friday to file first-degree amendments to the modified tobacco committee substitute. The leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session. Therefore, the cloture vote and any votes ordered with respect to the tobacco bill during tomorrow's session will be postponed to occur at a later date. As always, Members will be notified of the voting schedule next week as soon as it becomes available.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is no conduct less consistent with the precepts of a civilized society than the physical abuse of those unable to defend themselves. Our recognition of this has led to an aggressive and ongoing campaign against child abuse, and it must lead to an equally strong response to domestic violence directed at older Americans. For that reason, I am honored to rise today to cosponsor the Older Women's Protection from Violence Act, legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and I commend Senator Durbin for his leadership in this area. Mr. President, at a 1995 hearing in Portland, Maine, chaired by my predecessor, Senator Cohen, elder abuse was aptly described as ``society's secret shame.'' Family violence, particularly when directed at the elderly, was a major concern of Senator Cohen, and I welcome the opportunity to continue his efforts to combat this intolerable mistreatment of older Americans. Mr. President, earlier this month my home state released its crime statistics for 1997. I was cheered by the wonderful news that crime fell by 8.7% from 1996, to the lowest rate in at least 20 years. Hidden behind this positive statistic, however, was one that was very disquieting, namely, that domestic violence increased by 7.8%. Ironically, at the same time as we are becoming less likely to be harmed by strangers, many of our neighbors face an increasing threat from members of their own households. National data demonstrate that cases of domestic elder abuse, which includes neglect as well as physical abuse, are steadily increasing. From 1986 to 1996, the number of cases went from 117,000 to 293,000, an increase of 150%. Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that this type of abuse is greatly underreported. For example, although the number of reported cases in 1994 was 241,000, the National Center on Elder Abuse estimates that the true number of cases was 818,000. Mr. President, while these numbers indicate a serious and growing problem, all of the statistics in the world do not describe the problem as eloquently as the words of a single victim. At the Maine hearing, one such victim told what happened to her at the hands of her husband after her children left home. [T]hings got really bad. I had two broken wrists, cracked ribs, held down with his knee on my chest with a knife at my throat. I was made to crawl across the floor with a gun resting on my head, ready to fire. I've been choked until I was limp, and then he would drop me on the floor with a kick. I've been spit on, thrown through a window, dragged into the lake as he said he was going to drown me. Astonishingly, but not atypically, the witness was married to her husband for 44 years. Compounding the physical abuse suffered by elderly victims of violence is the sense of being trapped. Again, one of the witnesses at the Portland hearing described this far more effectively than I can. People ask why I remained under such circumstances. It was fear that kept me there. . . . I had been on an island for eight years. Where would I go? I had no money, no home, no job, and no credit. Although I had left good jobs to follow him from job to job, at age 60 who would hire me? Health insurance was my greatest concern. With a dependence on the abuser for financial support and physical care, with a long history of emotional ties to that person, with the fear of being held up to ridicule, and with a sense of hopelessness about finding a way out of the predicament, it is hardly surprising that the elderly victim is often reluctant to report domestic assaults. Domestic violence against older women is a complex problem about which we still lack adequate information. This has led to some erroneous assumptions. For example, it had been thought that assaults against the elderly usually result from caregiver stress, but while this is a factor, its effect now appears to have been overstated. Indeed, according to a recent report, ``[a]busers are not identical in their behavior or their assumptions about abusive conduct.'' As the report points out, this means that a ``cookie cutter'' approach will not solve the problem. Furhter complicating our efforts to deal with domestic violence against older women are the conflicting feelings and desires of many of the victims. It is quite common for the victim to have a familial relationship with the abuser, and thus, far more is likely to be involved in dealing with these situations that in dealing with an assault committed by a stranger. For understandable reasons, the older woman may want to preserve the relationship while ending the abuse. Finding effective ways to accomplish this can be a formidable challenge. Mr. President, the legislation that Senator Durbin and I are introducing today recognizes that complex problems defy simple solutions. Thus, the Older Women's Protection from Violence Act does not purport to contain a magic bullet that will eliminate this reprehensible conduct, but rather looks to a multi-faceted approach to address a multi-faceted problem. Similarly, the bill does not offer revolutionary solutions; instead, its message is that the time has come for society to roll up its sleeves and engage in the hard work of protecting those who have contributed so much to our individual and collective well-being. In keeping with the nature of the problem, the legislation provides for training those who are in a position to identify cases of domestic violence against older women. Consistent with the notion that we cannot stop or correct what we do not discover, the primary recipients of that training would be law enforcement officers and health professionals. In addition, the Attorney General is authorized to make grants to law school clinical programs to include elder abuse cases. The bill reauthorizes and expands programs that provide services to battered older women. Such services include outreach, support, and counseling. It also enhances their access to domestic violence shelters, something that can mean the difference between life and death in some cases. I should emphasize that the provision of these services will be largely at the local level, with financial assistance from the federal government. Mr. President, in a prior position, I managed a state agency that has as one of its principal mandates that protection of Maine people, many of them elderly, from fraud and other financial abuses. Thus, I am especially pleased that in addition to addressing violence against older women, this bill seeks to shed light on a problem affecting the elderly that has received even less attention, namely, their financial exploitation by a caregiver or family member. Two cases discussed at the Maine hearing illustrate my point. In one, an elderly gentleman from southern Maine went without food because his two nephews were stealing his money. Yet, he refused to send them away because they were ``family.'' In the second case, a 75-year old eastern Maine woman returned from the hospital after a severe stroke to find that her daughter and son-in-law had changed the locks on her house. The physical and emotional impact of the experience was so great that she was unable to undertake the legal battle to reclaim her home. This bill will shed light on this type of abuse by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the nature and extent of financial exploitation of older individuals. Our society simply cannot allow our senior citizens who have labored hard to build up a nest egg to have it wrongfully taken from them a the time they need it most. Mr. President, interest in elder abuse did not begin in our country until the late 1980s, long after we began to focus on child abuse in the 1960s. This may be because these cases are among the least likely to be reported. It may also be because our culture tends to worship youth, perhaps giving our older citizens the sense that we care less about them. In any case, this must change, not only because of demographic trends, but also because it is right. This bill will contribute to that change by dealing specifically with domestic violence against older women. In addition to providing services to the victims of this conduct, it funds research into various aspects of the problem to enhance our understanding and improve our ability to respond. Our secret shame must not remain a secret. Mr. President, in 1996 the average age of elder abuse victims was 78. There can be no justification for letting these older Americans, who have reached the point in life where they deserve peace, comfort, and respect, to be the victims of domestic violence or any other form of abuse. This bill is designed to prevent that, and I trust that my colleagues will support us in the effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is no conduct less consistent with the precepts of a civilized society than the physical abuse of those unable to defend themselves. Our recognition of this has led to an aggressive and ongoing campaign against child abuse, and it must lead to an equally strong response to domestic violence directed at older Americans. For that reason, I am honored to rise today to cosponsor the Older Women's Protection from Violence Act, legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and I commend Senator Durbin for his leadership in this area. Mr. President, at a 1995 hearing in Portland, Maine, chaired by my predecessor, Senator Cohen, elder abuse was aptly described as ``society's secret shame.'' Family violence, particularly when directed at the elderly, was a major concern of Senator Cohen, and I welcome the opportunity to continue his efforts to combat this intolerable mistreatment of older Americans. Mr. President, earlier this month my home state released its crime statistics for 1997. I was cheered by the wonderful news that crime fell by 8.7% from 1996, to the lowest rate in at least 20 years. Hidden behind this positive statistic, however, was one that was very disquieting, namely, that domestic violence increased by 7.8%. Ironically, at the same time as we are becoming less likely to be harmed by strangers, many of our neighbors face an increasing threat from members of their own households. National data demonstrate that cases of domestic elder abuse, which includes neglect as well as physical abuse, are steadily increasing. From 1986 to 1996, the number of cases went from 117,000 to 293,000, an increase of 150%. Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that this type of abuse is greatly underreported. For example, although the number of reported cases in 1994 was 241,000, the National Center on Elder Abuse estimates that the true number of cases was 818,000. Mr. President, while these numbers indicate a serious and growing problem, all of the statistics in the world do not describe the problem as eloquently as the words of a single victim. At the Maine hearing, one such victim told what happened to her at the hands of her husband after her children left home. [T]hings got really bad. I had two broken wrists, cracked ribs, held down with his knee on my chest with a knife at my throat. I was made to crawl across the floor with a gun resting on my head, ready to fire. I've been choked until I was limp, and then he would drop me on the floor with a kick. I've been spit on, thrown through a window, dragged into the lake as he said he was going to drown me. Astonishingly, but not atypically, the witness was married to her husband for 44 years. Compounding the physical abuse suffered by elderly victims of violence is the sense of being trapped. Again, one of the witnesses at the Portland hearing described this far more effectively than I can. People ask why I remained under such circumstances. It was fear that kept me there. . . . I had been on an island for eight years. Where would I go? I had no money, no home, no job, and no credit. Although I had left good jobs to follow him from job to job, at age 60 who would hire me? Health insurance was my greatest concern. With a dependence on the abuser for financial support and physical care, with a long history of emotional ties to that person, with the fear of being held up to ridicule, and with a sense of hopelessness about finding a way out of the predicament, it is hardly surprising that the elderly victim is often reluctant to report domestic assaults. Domestic violence against older women is a complex problem about which we still lack adequate information. This has led to some erroneous assumptions. For example, it had been thought that assaults against the elderly usually result from caregiver stress, but while this is a factor, its effect now appears to have been overstated. Indeed, according to a recent report, ``[a]busers are not identical in their behavior or their assumptions about abusive conduct.'' As the report points out, this means that a ``cookie cutter'' approach will not solve the problem. Furhter complicating our efforts to deal with domestic violence against older women are the conflicting feelings and desires of many of the victims. It is quite common for the victim to have a familial relationship with the abuser, and thus, far more is likely to be involved in dealing with these situations that in dealing with an assault committed by a stranger. For understandable reasons, the older woman may want to preserve the relationship while ending the abuse. Finding effective ways to accomplish this can be a formidable challenge. Mr. President, the legislation that Senator Durbin and I are introducing today recognizes that complex problems defy simple solutions. Thus, the Older Women's Protection from Violence Act does not purport to contain a magic bullet that will eliminate this reprehensible conduct, but rather looks to a multi-faceted approach to address a multi-faceted problem. Similarly, the bill does not offer revolutionary solutions; instead, its message is that the time has come for society to roll up its sleeves and engage in the hard work of protecting those who have contributed so much to our individual and collective well-being. In keeping with the nature of the problem, the legislation provides for training those who are in a position to identify cases of domestic violence against older women. Consistent with the notion that we cannot stop or correct what we do not discover, the primary recipients of that training would be law enforcement officers and health professionals. In addition, the Attorney General is authorized to make grants to law school clinical programs to include elder abuse cases. The bill reauthorizes and expands programs that provide services to battered older women. Such services include outreach, support, and counseling. It also enhances their access to domestic violence shelters, something that can mean the difference between life and death in some cases. I should emphasize that the provision of these services will be largely at the local level, with financial assistance from the federal government. Mr. President, in a prior position, I managed a state agency that has as one of its principal mandates that protection of Maine people, many of them elderly, from fraud and other financial abuses. Thus, I am especially pleased that in addition to addressing violence against older women, this bill seeks to shed light on a problem affecting the elderly that has received even less attention, namely, their financial exploitation by a caregiver or family member. Two cases discussed at the Maine hearing illustrate my point. In one, an elderly gentleman from southern Maine went without food because his two nephews were stealing his money. Yet, he refused to send them away because they were ``family.'' In the second case, a 75-year old eastern Maine woman returned from the hospital after a severe stroke to find that her daughter and son-in-law had changed the locks on her house. The physical and emotional impact of the experience was so great that she was unable to undertake the legal battle to reclaim her home. This bill will shed light on this type of abuse by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the nature and extent of financial exploitation of older individuals. Our society simply cannot allow our senior citizens who have labored hard to build up a nest egg to have it wrongfully taken from them a the time they need it most. Mr. President, interest in elder abuse did not begin in our country until the late 1980s, long after we began to focus on child abuse in the 1960s. This may be because these cases are among the least likely to be reported. It may also be because our culture tends to worship youth, perhaps giving our older citizens the sense that we care less about them. In any case, this must change, not only because of demographic trends, but also because it is right. This bill will contribute to that change by dealing specifically with domestic violence against older women. In addition to providing services to the victims of this conduct, it funds research into various aspects of the problem to enhance our understanding and improve our ability to respond. Our secret shame must not remain a secret. Mr. President, in 1996 the average age of elder abuse victims was 78. There can be no justification for letting these older Americans, who have reached the point in life where they deserve peace, comfort, and respect, to be the victims of domestic violence or any other form of abuse. This bill is designed to prevent that, and I trust that my colleagues will support us in the effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this week the Senate is debating far- reaching landmark legislation which gives us a historic opportunity to combat teen smoking and in the process save millions of lives. Tobacco use is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States, accounting for almost half a million deaths a year and billions of dollars in health care costs. More people die each year in the United States from smoking than from AIDS, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, car accidents, and fires combined. Tobacco use in this country carries a price tag of almost $100 billion a year in direct health costs and in lost productivity. Clearly, the single most effective thing we can do to improve our Nation's health is to stop smoking. However, smoking rates are actually increasing, particularly, and most tragically, among our young people. Tragically, tobacco addiction is increasingly a teen onset disease. Ninety percent of all smokers start before age 21. What is especially disturbing is that children, especially girls, are smoking at younger and younger ages. Smoking is at a 19-year high among high school seniors and has increased by over 35 percent among 8th graders over the past 7 years. The statistics for my own State of Maine are particularly alarming. Maine has the dubious distinction of having the highest smoking rate among young adults in the country. Thirty-two percent of our 18- to 30- year-olds are regular smokers. Almost 40 percent of Maine's high school seniors smoke. If current trends continue, one in nine children will die prematurely of tobacco-related illnesses. Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in Maine, responsible for almost 2,500 deaths a year. Direct medical costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses in Maine are about $200 million. Indirect costs--the costs associated with lost work time, higher insurance premiums and so forth--are also estimated to be about $200 million. These numbers speak for themselves. The status quo is simply unacceptable. If we are to put an end to this tragic and preventable epidemic, we must accelerate our efforts not only to help more smokers quit but also to discourage young people from ever lighting up in the first place. I found one fact in a recent Maine survey of smoking habits to be particularly disturbing. The smoking rate among young girls in my State has increased by 30 percent since 1993. I think that this advertisement gives us a good clue why. It is a blatant and shameless attempt by the tobacco industry to entice young girls, to entice teenagers to smoke. With more than 1,000 of the tobacco industries' best customers dying every day and another 3,000 to 5,000 quitting because of health concerns, smokers are literally a dying breed. As a consequence, the tobacco industry must hook thousands of new customers each day just to break even, and is now spending over $5 billion a year on advertising and promotional campaigns. The tobacco industry actually claims that it does not target image- conscious young people with its advertisements featuring rugged Marlboro men and fresh-faced, model thin, ``You can do it'' young women. But, Mr. President, the evidence clearly proves otherwise. Just look again at this magazine ad. It is very typical, very typical of cigarette advertising. This ad is not aimed at people my age. It certainly is not aimed at people my parent's age. There can be no doubt it is not aimed at adults at all. It is aimed at teenagers. Moreover, internal industry documents indicate that tobacco companies have long known that tobacco use leads to addiction, serious illness, and death. Yet, they nevertheless continue to pursue children, to target teens through ads and promotional campaigns, and have even gone so far as to consider marketing Coca-Cola-flavored cigarettes. A landmark 1991 study published in the Journal of American Medical Association showed that cigarette-smoking ``Smooth Joe'' Camel was as recognizable to 6-year-olds as Mickey Mouse. Let me repeat that. Joe Camel was as recognizable to 6-year-olds as Mickey Mouse. The tobacco industry claimed the ads were, in fact, directed at adults. A second study found that 98 percent of the 12- to 19-year-olds recognized Joe Camel, compared to just 72 percent of adults. As a result, Camel's market share among underage consumers rose from less than 1 percent when the Joe Camel campaign first began, to 33 percent when he was finally put out to pasture. More recent studies published in JAMA and elsewhere add further weight to the mounting evidence that advertising and marketing are the linchpins of the tobacco industry's efforts to hook children on nicotine. A February 1998 JAMA study found that the effect of tobacco advertising and promotional activities is ``strong and specific,'' with at least 34 percent of all experimentation with cigarettes by teenagers attributable to those activities. Moreover, a 1995 article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that tobacco marketing has a greater influence over a teen's decision to smoke than whether or not their parents smoke or their peers smoke. Other studies have shown that the cigarette brands most popular with teenagers are the ones most likely to advertise in magazines with the highest youth readership. Moreover, unlike adults, the vast majority of young smokers prefer the most heavily advertised brands of cigarettes. It is also far too easy for children and teens in the United States to purchase cigarettes. During hearings in the Labor Committee, we heard testimony that children living in 99 percent of our cities and towns have very little trouble walking into a store and buying a pack of cigarettes, despite the fact that it is against the law in all 50 States to sell tobacco products to minors. Mr. President, during this debate, we have focused a great deal of attention on the $1.10-a-pack fee that the McCain bill imposes on cigarettes. Some have argued today that is simply too low and that an increase to $1.50 or more a pack is necessary if we are going to curb underage smoking. Others--and I include myself in this group--are concerned that the evidence linking teen usage and price is not conclusive. Moreover, I am very concerned that a price increase of this magnitude is highly regressive and will fall mainly on adult smokers earning less than $30,000 a year. If we were to increase the cost by the $1.50 that was proposed, it would have meant that the average couple who smoke would be paying $712 more a year in taxes. That is a very hefty tax increase on low-income Americans. Mr. President, at some point, raising the tax on cigarettes ceases to contribute to the reduction of smoking and becomes little more than an act of financial cruelty. Tobacco is highly addictive and there are people, perhaps many people, who will not be able to quit smoking even with an additional tax of $1.50 or more. There is a point at which the tendency of the U.S. Senate to play God in the lives of the American people becomes dangerous. The notion that we can cure addictions by creating enough deprivation for those who are addicted is a very arrogant one. If we are wrong, we do nothing more than inflict suffering on those who do not deserve it. While I respect the motives of its supporters, I could not, and did not, back an amendment that carries such a risk and that is not truly needed to fund the antismoking programs included in this bill. Those of us who legislate must draw lines, and recognizing that I am far from infallible, I believe that a tax of $1.50 per pack crosses that line. If our purpose is to inflict pain, it should be on those who profit from the addiction and not on those who suffer from it. That is why I shall vote to support the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Hampshire to eliminate the immunity protections afforded to the tobacco industry by this bill. My view on the $1.50-a-pack tax proposal has been strongly reinforced by conversations I have had in recent weeks with young people in my State in an attempt to find out what the true experts--our teenagers-- believe would be most effective in stopping teens from smoking in the first place. I have asked this question to, among others, a seventh grader from Portland, a Boy Scout troop in Dover-Foxcroft, high school students in Aroostook, and a teen smoker in Bangor. Significantly, none of these teens felt that a price increase would be the most effective means of discouraging teens from smoking. As the addicted Bangor teen told me, ``I can't quit, so what I'll do is cut back on going to the movies or going to McDonald's in order to pay for cigarettes.'' Another teen told me that many students get their cigarettes by stealing them from their parents, so unless their parents stopped smoking, their access to cigarettes will be unaffected. Alex Pringle, a seventh grader from Portland, suggested that having smokers who are suffering from lung cancer or other smoking-related diseases come to schools would be the most effective means of discouraging kids from smoking. It would effectively make the link between smoking and illness, a link that is too often unrecognizable to teens who believe themselves to be invulnerable. Teens throughout the State told me that they smoked simply because it was ``cool'' or because it helped them feel more accepted by their friends. From their comments, I have no doubt that the tobacco industry's ads, such as the one I have displayed today, have sent a clear message to teens that teens who smoke are cool. I also have no doubt that when teens see movie idols such as Leonardo DeCaprio smoke, that message is, unfortunately, reinforced. That is why the educational, counteradvertising, and research programs funded by this legislation, as well as the advertising restrictions, are so critical to our efforts to sever the deadly connection between teens and tobacco. Earlier this year, I joined Senators Jim Jeffords and Mike Enzi in introducing the Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or the PAST Act, which adopts a comprehensive approach to preventing teens from smoking. The bill gave clear and comprehensive authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and incorporated the FDA's recommendations on combating teen smoking, such as strong warning labels, a ban on vending machine sales, a ban on outdoor advertising and brand name sponsorship of sporting events, and prohibition on the use of images like Joe Camel and the Marlboro man. The legislation also held tobacco companies accountable by imposing stiff financial penalties if the smoking rate among children does not decline. Moreover, the legislation incorporates strong measures to ensure that restrictions on youth access to tobacco products are tough and enforceable, and it promoted the development of State and local community action programs designed not only to educate the public on the hazards of tobacco and addiction, but also to promote the prevention and cessation of the use of tobacco products. We need to focus on cessation programs. They are an important part of this bill. It also called for a comprehensive, tobacco-related research program to study the nature of addiction, the effects of nicotine on the body, and ways to change behavior, particularly that of children and teens. We don't know enough about addiction yet. And finally, and very important, it called for a national public education campaign to deglamorize the use of tobacco products to discourage teens from smoking. Mr. President, we have made tremendous progress in recent years in making our streets safer from alcohol-impaired drivers. This was accomplished not only through tough drunk-driving laws, but also through a very effective national advertising campaign waged by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others that has resulted in a change in our Nation's attitudes toward drinking and driving. This is the approach that we need to take to curb teen smoking. The legislation we are considering this week contains many of the public health provisions that were included in the PAST Act. While the legislation before us tonight is not perfect and will undoubtedly face many more amendments during Senate consideration, it does give us a critical opportunity to address the teen smoking epidemic in a strong and comprehensive way. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to preserve the state statute of limitations for cases removed to Federal court under this legislation. I intend to vote for this bill. But in doing so, I think it important to be straightforward about what S. 1260 does. This is a bill that preempts state law. Specifically, it preempts securities antifraud statutes for certain types of class action cases. I generally oppose preemption, as I think it overlooks the considerable wisdom that exists at the local level. Not without some measure of discomfort, I am nonetheless inclined to vote for this bill, because I find considerable merit to the contention that large class- action cases against companies whose securities are sold in the national marketplace may well belong in the Federal courts. Otherwise, Congress' ability to regulate our national securities markets in an era of international investing is arguably impeded. I feel strongly, however, that if we are going to preempt state law and impose a single federal standard, it must be a fair one, and that is not the case with the federal statute of limitations. Under federal law, a securities fraud suit must be brought within one year of when the fraud was or should have been discovered, but in no instance after more than three years have elapsed. I served for five years as the head of the Maine department that regulates financial institutions, and I can tell you from personal experience that a three-year limitations period is too short. The reality is that, even with due diligence, some frauds are not discovered within that time frame. Indeed, the very object of a fraud is to deceive the other party to the transaction for as long as possible. The limited partnership cases of the last decade illustrate my point. The victims of those frauds were largely elderly, largely trusting, and largely lacking in financial sophistication. It is no wonder that in many of those instances, they did not, and even within reasonable care, could not have, discovered the fraud within three years of its commission. It is not just my opinion that the Federal limitations period is inadequate. The Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position that the period is too short. This is an instance in which the Maine Legislature has shown more wisdom than the Federal Government. Under the law of my state, the limitation period is two years from the date the fraud was, or with reasonable care, should have been discovered, with no outside limit. That gives innocent investors the opportunity to obtain redress for fraud as long as they act with reasonable diligence. I can understand the argument for a single, Federal standard in this area, but I cannot accept preempting a state standard that is far more consistent with reality. While the best remedy would be to change the Federal limitations period for all securities fraud cases, that issue is not before us today. Thus, we should take the next best step, which is to preserve the state statutes for cases that are removed to Federal court under this legislation. What this amendment will not do is harm high-tech companies. What it will do--maybe not this year or next, but at some point--is to protect innocent, unsuspecting investors, who are victimized by a securities scam that could not reasonably have been discovered within three years. Thus, I urge my colleagues not to wait until we have such victims, but to stop the problem before it occurs by supporting this amendment. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to start by complimenting the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his outstanding leadership in dealing with a very important consumer issue, and that is telephone slamming. I also want to commend the Senator from North Dakota for his very eloquent explanation of the problem and the solutions. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 1618, legislation that will provide America's consumers with much needed protection against a fraudulent practice known as slamming--the unauthorized switching of a customer's telephone service provider. I want to commend Senator McCain and Hollings for taking steps to attack this rapidly growing problem. Telephone slamming is spreading like wildfire. In Maine, complaints increased by 100 percent from 1996 to 1997. Nationwide, slamming is the number one telephone-related complaint. While the FCC received more than 20,000 slamming complaints in 1997, a significant increase over the previous year, estimates from phone companies indicate that as many as one million people were slammed during that 12-month period. Last fall, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, undertook an extensive investigation of this problem. At a field hearing this past February in Portland, Maine, at which I was joined by Senator Durbin, one of the leaders in the fight against slamming, we heard from several consumers who were victimized by this practice. Their words reflect the public attitude toward the intentional slammer, as they described what happened to them as ``stealing,'' ``criminal,'' and ``break-in.'' My Subcommittee recently held a second hearing, which revealed that a number of what are known as switchless resellers were responsible for a large percentage of the intentional slamming incidents. These operations use deceptive marketing practices and outright fraud to switch consumers' long distance service without their consent. One recent victim was a hospital in western Maine. This demonstrates that no one is immune from this despicable practice. Mr. President, our hearings presented a case that dramatically shows the need for tougher sanctions to deal with this problem. I refer to an individual by the name of Daniel Fletcher, who fraudulently operated as a long distance reseller under at least eight different company names, slamming thousands of consumers, and billing them for at least $20 million in long distance charges. While we were struck by the ease with which Mr. Fletcher carried out his activities and evaded detection, we were shocked to learn about the absence of adequate criminal sanctions to deal with his activities. Mr. Fletcher bilked America's telephone customers out of millions of dollars by charging them for services they did not authorize and obtaining from them money to which he was not entitled. Yet, we lack a statute that expressly makes intentional slamming a crime, and unless that is corrected, we can expect many more Fletchers. Mr. President, the time has come for the United States Congress to disconnect the telephone slammers. Given our concern about this problem, Senator Durbin and I introduced slamming legislation, and I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for agreeing to incorporate its three main provisions into a Manager's Amendment to their bill. These additions will help make a good bill even better. The first of these provisions will get tough with the outright scam artists by establishing new criminal penalties for intentional slamming. I should emphasize that these penalties will apply only to those who know that they are acting without the customer's authorization and not to those who make an honest mistake or even act carelessly. It's time we sent the deliberate slammer to the slammer. In addition, anyone convicted of intentional slamming will be disqualified from being a telecommunications service provider, thereby enabling us not only to punish past conduct but also to prevent future violations. The second provision is designed to remove the financial incentive for companies to engage in slamming by giving slammed customers the option to pay their original carrier at their previous rate. Under current law, it appears that customers are obligated to pay the slammer even after they discover they have been switched without their consent. That hardly acts as a deterrent, something that must be changed. The third provision will improve enforcement by requiring all telecommunications carriers to report slamming violations on a quarterly basis to the FCC. To avoid putting a burden on the carriers, the report need only be summary in nature, but it will enable the FCC to identify and move against the frequent slammer. Deregulation of the telephone industry may produce many benefits for consumers but it also has given rise to fraud where it did not previously exist. It was Congress who decided to deregulate the industry, and it is Congress that must act to stop this fraud. Senate bill 1618 will move us in that direction by putting a big dent in telephone slamming and by protecting the right of the American people to choose with whom they wish to do business. Again, I very much appreciate the cooperation of the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee and his willingness to accept the Collins-Durbin amendments. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I are offering an amendment to reduce some of the burdensome reporting requirements placed on educational institutions by the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. These education tax incentives, which Congress created last year, are of great benefit to students and their families. Unfortunately, our attempt to expand educational opportunities has had the unintended effect of imposing a burdensome and costly reporting requirement on our post-secondary schools. Beginning with tax year 1998, every college, university, and proprietary school will have to provide the IRS with an array of information that will do little, if anything, to assist in tax collection. Not only will these schools have to report Social Security numbers and the amount of qualified tuition and aid for each student, the schools will also have to report to the IRS on the students' attendance status and program level. But that is not all, and the reporting requirements do not stop there, Mr. President. The schools will also be required to report either a taxpayer ID number or Social Security number for the person who will claim the tax credit--generally a parent or a guardian--for all students who do not claim the tax credit themselves. This administrative nightmare translates into real money. The American Council on Education has estimated that this reporting requirement will cost our colleges and universities $115 million in 1998 and $136 million in 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Council on Education relating to the results of its cost survey be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we should not delude ourselves about who will end up paying the cost and price of these requirements. Ultimately, the cost of compliance will be shifted from the schools to the students and their families. As a result, the value of the Hope Scholarship Program and Lifetime Learning Tax Credit will be diminished. Mr. President, the IRS has complained that eliminating these reporting requirements will be too expensive, essentially arguing that too many people who are not entitled to claim the exemption will do so. I find this logic curious because with the other exemptions and credits in the code, we require the taxpayers to report the necessary information on their tax returns and maintain records of their expenses to support any tax credit or deduction that they claim. It seems to me that the education tax credits should receive the same treatment. But let's assume that the IRS is correct, Mr. President, and that the education tax credits should be treated differently--if that is the case, why should the burden fall on our nation's colleges and universities? The fact is that the IRS already collects much of the information needed to verify the validity of the tax credits. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking minority member to join with Senator DeWine and me in a request to the Joint Committee on Taxation to study this issue and to look specifically at what the cost would be to the IRS to develop a system to ensure compliance based on information that already requires taxpayers to file. For example, taxpayers are already required to file the name and the Social Security for their dependents. Many experts maintain that the IRS already has much of the information that it needs. It simply needs to modify its software to allow it to conduct matches to verify the information. Mr. President, it certainly is worth determining whether the cost to the IRS would be less than or more than the $115 million that it will cost our universities and colleges each year to comply with the paperwork associated with these credits. Mr. President, the rationale for the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits was to make postsecondary education more affordable, and thus more accessible to lower- and middle-income families. Unfortunately, what Congress has given with one hand it has taken away at least in part with its regulatory hand. It is within our power to fix this problem. We should do so soon. Tonight, pending the resolution of the larger issue, we can take one small step to alleviate some of the burden imposed upon our colleges and universities. The amendment that Senator DeWine and I are offering will change the requirement for reporting the tuition and grant aid pertaining to each student in a manner that will make it somewhat easier for our postsecondary institutions to comply. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored the cost impact of the change as being negligible, but the revision will help our colleges and universities. I urge adoption of the amendment. I hope to have the cooperation of the chairman and ranking minority member in addressing the larger issue. Now I would like to yield to my colleague from Ohio and my cosponsor, Senator DeWine. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing on ``Safety of Food Imports.'' This hearing will take place on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on May 2-4, 1998, more than 1,200 students from across the nation were in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that a class from Old Orchard Beach High School represented the State of Maine. These outstanding young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in Maine. The distinguished members of the class representing Maine are: Lauren Asperschlager, Lucy Coulthard, Chad Daley, Rose Gordon, Krista Knowles, Nathan LaChance, Sarah Lunn, Sandra Marshall, Katie McPherson, Cindy St. Onge, Sam Tarbox, and Sharon Wilson. I also want to recognize their teacher, Michael Angelosante, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The district coordinator, John Drisko, and the state coordinator, Pam Beal, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the class reach the national finals. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing whereby the students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary constitutional issues. The simulated congressional hearing consists of oral presentations by the students before panels of adult judges. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, The We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students nationwide. Members of Congress and their staffs enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. The We the People . . . program is designed to help students achieve a reasoned commitment to the fundamental values and principles that bind Americans together as a people. The program also fosters civic involvement as well as character traits conducive to effective and responsible participation in politics and government. I commend these student constitutional experts from Maine and throughout the nation who have participated in the We the People . . . national finals for their achievement in reaching this level of the competition.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Injunction of Secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on May 1, 1998, by the President of the United States: Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Treaty Document No. 105-43). I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet tomorrow.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 5. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Hatch, 30 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes; Senator Conrad, 15 minutes; and Senator Craig for 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill, with debate only in order prior to the policy luncheon recess, except for the offering of a managers' amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make a correction in section 3.2(D) of the Resolution of Ratification of Executive Treaty Document No. 105-36 by inserting the word ``specifically'' before ``authorized.''