Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1179, and further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

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, the Senate will not be in session tomorrow in observance of the Jewish holiday. On Friday, the Senate will reconvene for a period of morning business. As announced, no rollcall votes will occur on Friday or Monday. The next possibility for rollcall votes will occur Tuesday morning. Following Friday's session, the Senate will reconvene on Monday and resume consideration of S. 25, the campaign finance reform bill. In addition, the Senate may consider the D.C. appropriations bill during Tuesday's session.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 1022 be vitiated.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m., on Friday, October 3d. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and that there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, except for the following: Senator Daschle or his designee for 30 minutes, from 10 o'clock to 10:30; Senator Coverdell or his designee for up to 60 minutes, from 10:30 to 11:30.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve Diamond, from my staff, be accorded privileges of the floor for the duration of this debate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to make much-needed changes in our campaign finance laws by supporting the modified version of the McCain-Feingold legislation. I am pleased, Mr. President, to be a cosponsor of this landmark bill. Shortly after becoming President of the United States, one of our former Presidents was asked what his biggest surprise was on assuming office. Without hesitation, he said it was his discovery that things were actually as bad as he had been saying they were during the campaign. Mr. President, during my Senate campaign, I told the people of Maine that our Nation's campaign finance system is broken. Since my election, I have spent a great deal of my time questioning witnesses at the hearings held by the Governmental Affairs Committee. Unlike the former President, what I have discovered is not that things are as bad as I had been saying they were; it is that they are much worse. The twin loopholes of soft money and bogus issue ads have virtually obliterated our campaign finance laws, leaving us with little more than a pile of legal rubble. We supposedly have restrictions on how much individuals can give to political parties; yet, Yogesh Gandhi is able to contribute $325,000 to the DNC to buy a picture with the President, and Roger Tamraz mockingly tells a committee of the U.S. Senate that next time he will spend $600,000, rather than $300,000, to buy access to the White House. We supposedly prohibit corporations and unions from spending money on political campaigns; yet, the AFL-CIO spends $800,000 in Maine on so-called issue ads which anyone with an ounce of common sense recognized were designed to defeat a candidate for Congress. We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved the largest ones for ourselves. Indeed, these loopholes are more like black holes, and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the whoosh of six-figure soft money donations rushing into party coffers. Why should this matter, we are asked by those all too eager to equate freedom of speech with freedom to spend? It should matter because political equality is the essence of democracy, and an electoral system driven by big money is one lacking in political equality. Mr. President, this is an issue of great concern to the people of my home State. While there are differences in Maine on how the system should be reformed--I, for one, do not believe that meaningful change requires that we make taxpayers underwrite campaigns--there does seem to be a stronger consensus in Maine than elsewhere on the need for reform. If my colleagues will indulge me a bit of home State pride, I think the Maine perspective results from old fashioned Down East common sense. Maine people are able to see through the complexities of this debate. They focus on what is at heart a very simple and yet very profound problem. As long as we allow unlimited contributions--whether in the form of hard or soft money--we will not have political equality in this country. It is not simply the lack of a level playing field for those seeking public office. What is more important is the lack of a level playing field for those seeking access to their government. It strikes me that the Maine attitude may be shaped by the fact that many communities in my State still hold town meetings. I am not talking about the staged, televised town meeting which has become so fashionable of late. I am talking about a rough and tumble meeting held in the town office or the high school gym or the grange hall. Attend one of these sessions and you will observe an element of true democracy: People with more money do not get to speak longer and louder than people with less money. What is true at Maine town meetings is unfortunately not true in Washington. Mr. President, let me address a very disquieting aspect of the debate on the McCain-Feingold bill; namely, the misinformation that is being spread about what the bill would do. In that connection, I would emphasize that McCain-Feingold does not bar issue advocacy. I will say that again because the legislation's opponents persist in misstating this point--McCain-Feingold does not, and I emphasize not, bar issue advocacy. To explain this aspect of the bill in more detail, and to share with my colleagues an experience that contributed to my becoming a cosponsor, I need to go back to the 1996 race for Maine's First Congressional District in the House of Representatives. In the course of that election, the AFL-CIO spent $800,000 to defeat the Republican candidate. They did this by running a steady barrage of blatantly negative ads. Now why am I protesting a national union, using money from its general treasury to run a saturation campaign of negative ads that may well have decided a Maine congressional race? Whatever our objection to such ads, isn't that perfectly legal? The answer is, or at least is supposed to be, no. Current law prohibits a union, as well as a corporation, from spending money, other than through a PAC, to influence an election for a Federal office. That leads to another obvious question--if current law forbids unions from using non-PAC money to run ads to influence a Federal election, how was the AFL-CIO able to spend $800,000 to defeat a Republican congressional candidate in Maine? Mr. President, that question takes us to the heart of the problem and to the need for McCain-Feingold. Unfortunately, some courts have interpreted ``expressly advocating'' to require that the ad use words such as ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' or ``elect'' or ``defeat.'' If the ad avoids those magic words and makes at least a passing reference to an issue, as the AFL- CIO did in Maine, those courts concluded that it does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, and the union may run it. Mr. President, the situation I have described has led to the biggest sham in American politics. Nobody in Maine believed that the AFL-CIO's negative ads were for any purpose other than the defeat of a candidate. Indeed, at least one newspaper which endorsed the Democratic candidate blasted the union ads against his opponent. Ads of that nature make an absolute mockery out of the prohibition against unions and corporatings spending money on Federal elections. The ``express advocacy'' provision in McCain-Feingold is designed to do away with this sham. Contrary to what some have said, it would not affect independent ads financed other than by a union or corporation, except to enhance the reporting requirements, which everyone in this body purports to favor. It also would not stop unions and corporations from running true issue ads. Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues that if you believe, as I do, that it continues to represent sound public policy to prohibit unions from using their vast general funds to dictate the results of Federal elections, particularly in small States like Maine, then you should support McCain-Feingold. Mr. President, let me also take a minute to explain the bright line test for express advocacy that has been the subject of ill-informed criticism during this debate. What that test would provide is that any television ad that clearly identifies a candidate and that is run within 60 days of an election would be deemed express advocacy. I view the bright line test as a key provision of McCain-Feingold, and I support its inclusion for two reasons. First, the courts have said that for constitutional purposes, people must clearly know what they can and cannot do, something which the bright line test gives them. Second, and contrary to what some opponents of the bill have said, the bright line test lessens the power of the Federal Election Commission. By having a clear standard, rather than one which requires a case-by-case analysis, the regulatory agency has less discretion to determine what the law should be and when actions should be brought. Thus, those who have argued both against the test and against a greater role for the FEC are in reality arguing with themselves. Mr. President, this subject is more complex than any of us would like, but behind the complexity is a simple proposition. Current law has given rise to the widespread practice of running bogus issue ads, and that should not be allowed to continue. Those Members of this body who support the prohibition against unions and corporations using their vast resources to dictate the results of Federal elections should vote for McCain-Feingold. Those Members who do not support the prohibition should take the honest road and work for its repeal. The one unacceptable course is to perpetuate a sham that undermines the integrity of our election laws. I look forward to debating this issue in the days ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with a tremendous sense of pride and great pleasure to inform my colleagues that a citizen of the great State of Maine has been elected national commander of the American Legion. As many in this Chamber are aware, the American Legion recently held its 79th national convention in Orlando, FL. At the conclusion of that convention, a Maine legionnaire, Anthony Jordan, of Augusta, was elected national commander. To be selected by your peers to such a prestigious post is a significant accomplishment. For his home State, for his family, for his American Legion post in Wiscasset, ME, and for the thousands of Maine veterans it is a singular honor. Mr. President, the American Legion chose wisely when it selected Mr. Jordan to lead this organization for the next year. Let me just tell you a bit about Mr. Jordan's background. Tony Jordan served in the U.S. Army from 1963 to 1965. He joined the American Legion, our Nation's largest veterans organization, in 1971. Mr. Jordan demonstrated an unusual level of personal commitment and leadership in making his commitment to the work of the American Legion, both at the State and the national level. For example, he served as post commander in Wiscasset and as vice commander of the American Legion Department of Maine. He also served as chairman of the Legion's national membership and post activities committee. He chaired the Foreign Relations Council and the National Security Commission. In addition, Mr. Jordan also contributed to the Legion as a member of the National Legislative Commission and as liaison to the National Finance Commission. Finance, foreign relations, national security--that is an impressive and diverse range of committee appointments that make him well qualified to head the American Legion. But the Legion also knew that, when it asked Tony Jordan to take charge, this was an important time for the American Legion and for America's veterans. Tony Jordan has expressed strong personal sentiments in favor of the constitutional amendment to protect the American flag. Our flag is the symbol for everything for which our Nation stands. Mr. Jordan is standing with those who believe in the integrity of the flag and what it represents--freedom and justice, ideals for which our Nation's veterans risk and, in some cases, gave their lives. Mr. Jordan is also outspoken in his support of a GI bill of health, the American Legion's response to the challenges being faced by the Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans across this country as they seek to fulfill the promise we made to ensure that our veterans have access to quality health care. These are only a few examples, Mr. President, of what Mr. Jordan has done on behalf of his country and its largest veterans organization. I know my colleagues will agree that the American Legion chose wisely and well when it elected Anthony Jordan of Augusta, ME, as its national commander. I wish him well in the challenging year ahead. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Working Students' Income Protection Act, a bill to increase the number of working students who are eligible for Federal Pell grants. I am pleased to have Senator Snowe, Senator Hollings, and Senator Robb as cosponsors. This bill will correct a problem created by the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act that unfairly denies aid to hundreds of thousands of deserving students. Let me explain the problem. The formula used to determine the eligibility for Federal financial aid includes an income protection allowance, known as an IPA, which enables working students to retain a portion of their earnings to pay their basic living expenses. This allowance is not counted in determining eligibility for student aid. A portion of earnings above the IPA is used to calculate the contributions students can make to their education expenses. As students' incomes rise above the IPA, their eligibility for Federal student aid, especially for Pell grants, declines. The 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act dramatically and drastically lowered the income protection allowances. For single students, financially independent of their families, the IPA was reduced from $6,400 to $3,000. The IPA for working dependent students was lowered from $4,250 to $1,750. As a result, the amount a typical independent student can receive under the Pell Grant Program begins to decline when his or her income exceeds $3,000, and the student becomes completely ineligible at an income level of $10,000. Because of this decrease in IPA's, the number of independent students receiving Pell grants declined from over a million in 1992 to about 750,000 in 1993--a loss of over a quarter of a million grants to independent working students. This change has three unfortunate consequences: First, many nontraditional students are not able to pursue post- secondary education. Typically these are older individuals with jobs who are attempting to improve their skills. Because the IPA is not enough to meet living expenses, independent students find themselves unable to pay tuition and meet their basic living expenses. They are forced to defer or even forgo higher education. Second, the current law creates a disincentive to work. If a student knows that earning more than $3,000 will reduce the size of his or her Pell grant award, the student can easily conclude that there is no reason to try to earn more than $3,000 a year. Third, it penalizes students who are trying to pay for their education through work rather than by borrowing. This is particularly unfair to the almost 75 percent of dependent undergraduates who are working while studying to pay college expenses. When earnings result in lower grants, these students must turn to larger loans to finance their education. The Working Students' Income Protection Act will make great strides toward correcting these problems. It will allow single independent students to retain $6,000 of their earnings for basic living expenses, married working independent students to retain $9,000, and working dependent students to retain $4,200 before they begin to loose their Pell grants. This will not only make higher education more affordable for these students, it will also encourage and reward work, a worthwhile objective. Moreover, these changes will correct an injustice by providing benefits to a segment of the student population that has been largely overlooked by the changes in student aid recently passed or currently under consideration. Increasing Pell grants by $300, for example, a move that I strongly support, which was included in the budget agreement, will not help the working students who are ineligible for these grants because of the inadequate level of the current IPA. Similarly, the tuition tax credit will not help them because they are not earning enough to pay taxes. By increasing the IPA, these students will be able to share in the government assistance available to those seeking to pursue a higher education. I would like to give you some examples from the University of Southern Maine, a State-supported institution serving 10,000 students. These students have an average age of just under 30 years. They are largely independent students and they are balancing jobs, school, and often family responsibilities. When these students have incomes above the IPA, which they must have to survive, they are not eligible for Pell grants under the current law. Let me describe two of these students to you. Both are single students. The first is a 25-year-old junior recreation therapy major. She has worked as a nurses aide since graduating from high school, and she continues to work full time during the summers and part time during the school year. The second is a 31-year-old social work major. He works year round in a variety of part-time restaurant and clerical jobs. Both have total gross earnings of about $15,000 per year. The current income protection allowance permits each of these students to retain only $3,000 for basic living expenses. It assumes that the remainder is available for calculating the family contribution toward educational expenses. The Working Students' Income Protection Act will allow each of these students to retain $6,000 for basic living expenses and will restore their eligibility for Pell grants. It will allow them to complete their education without incurring significant amounts of debt. The president of the University of Southern Maine, Richard Pattenaude, has often noted that the mission of a public university is to help people of diverse backgrounds achieve their goals. These citizens, including recent high school graduates, adult learners with jobs and families, and single parents, all come to us, he says, With dreams of becoming more than they are. I am always moved and inspired by how hard our students work to realize those dreams and how deeply they care about their educations. These students underscore the significance of maintaining support for higher education if we are to enter the 21st century with an educational system ready to meet the needs and challenges of the people we serve. By increasing the income protection allowance, the Working Students' Income Protection Act will take a major step toward meeting this challenge by helping working students afford college and encouraging them to pursue higher education. Later in this Congress, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, whose chairman is here today, will mark up the Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation. It is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into the committee's bill. Enacting this modest change will make a significant and positive change in the lives of thousands and thousands of students in the United States I urge my colleagues to show their support by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Council of Education on behalf of seven higher education associations which support this bill be included in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill for yielding to me. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1199 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Working Students' Income Protection Act, a bill to increase the number of working students who are eligible for Federal Pell grants. I am pleased to have Senator Snowe, Senator Hollings, and Senator Robb as cosponsors. This bill will correct a problem created by the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act that unfairly denies aid to hundreds of thousands of deserving students. Let me explain the problem. The formula used to determine the eligibility for Federal financial aid includes an income protection allowance, known as an IPA, which enables working students to retain a portion of their earnings to pay their basic living expenses. This allowance is not counted in determining eligibility for student aid. A portion of earnings above the IPA is used to calculate the contributions students can make to their education expenses. As students' incomes rise above the IPA, their eligibility for Federal student aid, especially for Pell grants, declines. The 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act dramatically and drastically lowered the income protection allowances. For single students, financially independent of their families, the IPA was reduced from $6,400 to $3,000. The IPA for working dependent students was lowered from $4,250 to $1,750. As a result, the amount a typical independent student can receive under the Pell Grant Program begins to decline when his or her income exceeds $3,000, and the student becomes completely ineligible at an income level of $10,000. Because of this decrease in IPA's, the number of independent students receiving Pell grants declined from over a million in 1992 to about 750,000 in 1993--a loss of over a quarter of a million grants to independent working students. This change has three unfortunate consequences: First, many nontraditional students are not able to pursue post- secondary education. Typically these are older individuals with jobs who are attempting to improve their skills. Because the IPA is not enough to meet living expenses, independent students find themselves unable to pay tuition and meet their basic living expenses. They are forced to defer or even forgo higher education. Second, the current law creates a disincentive to work. If a student knows that earning more than $3,000 will reduce the size of his or her Pell grant award, the student can easily conclude that there is no reason to try to earn more than $3,000 a year. Third, it penalizes students who are trying to pay for their education through work rather than by borrowing. This is particularly unfair to the almost 75 percent of dependent undergraduates who are working while studying to pay college expenses. When earnings result in lower grants, these students must turn to larger loans to finance their education. The Working Students' Income Protection Act will make great strides toward correcting these problems. It will allow single independent students to retain $6,000 of their earnings for basic living expenses, married working independent students to retain $9,000, and working dependent students to retain $4,200 before they begin to loose their Pell grants. This will not only make higher education more affordable for these students, it will also encourage and reward work, a worthwhile objective. Moreover, these changes will correct an injustice by providing benefits to a segment of the student population that has been largely overlooked by the changes in student aid recently passed or currently under consideration. Increasing Pell grants by $300, for example, a move that I strongly support, which was included in the budget agreement, will not help the working students who are ineligible for these grants because of the inadequate level of the current IPA. Similarly, the tuition tax credit will not help them because they are not earning enough to pay taxes. By increasing the IPA, these students will be able to share in the government assistance available to those seeking to pursue a higher education. I would like to give you some examples from the University of Southern Maine, a State-supported institution serving 10,000 students. These students have an average age of just under 30 years. They are largely independent students and they are balancing jobs, school, and often family responsibilities. When these students have incomes above the IPA, which they must have to survive, they are not eligible for Pell grants under the current law. Let me describe two of these students to you. Both are single students. The first is a 25-year-old junior recreation therapy major. She has worked as a nurses aide since graduating from high school, and she continues to work full time during the summers and part time during the school year. The second is a 31-year-old social work major. He works year round in a variety of part-time restaurant and clerical jobs. Both have total gross earnings of about $15,000 per year. The current income protection allowance permits each of these students to retain only $3,000 for basic living expenses. It assumes that the remainder is available for calculating the family contribution toward educational expenses. The Working Students' Income Protection Act will allow each of these students to retain $6,000 for basic living expenses and will restore their eligibility for Pell grants. It will allow them to complete their education without incurring significant amounts of debt. The president of the University of Southern Maine, Richard Pattenaude, has often noted that the mission of a public university is to help people of diverse backgrounds achieve their goals. These citizens, including recent high school graduates, adult learners with jobs and families, and single parents, all come to us, he says, With dreams of becoming more than they are. I am always moved and inspired by how hard our students work to realize those dreams and how deeply they care about their educations. These students underscore the significance of maintaining support for higher education if we are to enter the 21st century with an educational system ready to meet the needs and challenges of the people we serve. By increasing the income protection allowance, the Working Students' Income Protection Act will take a major step toward meeting this challenge by helping working students afford college and encouraging them to pursue higher education. Later in this Congress, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, whose chairman is here today, will mark up the Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation. It is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into the committee's bill. Enacting this modest change will make a significant and positive change in the lives of thousands and thousands of students in the United States I urge my colleagues to show their support by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Council of Education on behalf of seven higher education associations which support this bill be included in the Record.

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 hearings on ``Emerging Securities Fraud: Fraud In The Micro-Capital Markets.'' This hearing will take place on Monday, September 22, 1997, at 1:30 p.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. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in very reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I do believe that the issue of attorney's fees is an important one. But it should be debated in the context of the global tobacco settlement. My fear is that despite the best intentions of the sponsors of this amendment that passage of the Sessions amendment would jeopardize the underlying Durbin-Collins amendment to repeal the $50 billion tax giveaway to big tobacco. For that reason, I am going to vote to table Senator Sessions' amendment. I do want to point out one issue that has become obscured in this debate, and that is that the money that will be paid in attorney's fees does not come out of the $368.5 billion global settlement. Instead, the attorney's fees will be paid by the tobacco industry, separate from the settlement. So the attorney's fees do not diminish the amount of the $368.5 billion settlement. I think that is an important point that has been lost in this debate. I share the concerns of my colleague from Alabama about an attorney's fees. I think there are, however, constitutional issues about whether Congress can step in and abrogate contracts that were reached between the States attorneys general and private law firms. That is an issue that deserves to be thoroughly explored. But, most of all, I urge my colleagues, whatever their position on the tobacco settlement, whatever their position on the issue of attorney's fees, to save this debate for a more appropriate time. And that is when the global tobacco settlement is before the Senate. My fear is that the passage of this amendment would jeopardize the underlying amendment to repeal the $50 billion tax break, and I do not believe we should allow that to happen. For this reason, I will support the motion to table, offered by the Senator from Illinois. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be joining with my colleague from Illinois in offering this amendment to repeal the tax break that was slipped into the tax bill at the very last minute to benefit the tobacco industry. I note that the distinguished Presiding Officer, my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, is also a strong supporter and cosponsor of our effort. This provision, which amounts to a $50 billion giveaway to big tobacco, has generated justifiable outrage across the country and fueled the tremendous cynicism that already colors the American public's view of politics and politicians. Now, Madam President, where did this tax break come from? It was not in the Senate tax bill. It was not in the House version of the bill. There was never any public debate. The one-sentence provision just magically appeared at the end of a 327-page conference report tucked into a section entitled ``Technical Amendments Related to Small Business, Job Protection, and Other Legislation.'' No one claimed parentage. Like Harriet Beecher Stowe's Topsy, ``She wasn't born, she just was.'' While no one has officially spoken up to claim this orphan, it turns out, according to press reports, that the provision was written not by Members of Congress, but by the tobacco industry. Madam President, this is outrageous. It is backroom politics at its worst, and represents the kind of abuse of the legislative process that the American public is rightfully sick and tired of--a secret agreement, negotiated behind closed doors, by powerful tobacco industry lobbyists, in the closing hours of consideration of a massive tax bill. Congress is currently considering the proposed $368.5 billion global settlement negotiated between 40 attorneys general and the tobacco industry. As we review this settlement, one of our primary objectives is to ensure that the tobacco industry has negotiated in good faith and is held fully accountable for their past misconduct. Many of us have harbored suspicions about the tobacco companies' supposedly good intentions during these negotiations. We have been concerned that the tobacco companies would simply raise prices and write off the settlement payments, effectively passing on the costs of the settlement to the taxpayer and the tobacco consumer. Well, Madam President, worst suspicions confirmed. Not only can the tobacco companies write off the entire $368 billion as a business expense, which means that 30 to 40 percent of the tobacco settlement costs will be subsidized by the taxpayers, but now the Congress, in a moment of midnight madness, has carved out a brand-new tax break for these companies that effectively reduces the costs of the settlement by $50 billion. It is outrageous that we should even consider approving this tax break and passing on these costs to the American taxpayer. Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States. It accounts for approximately 500,000 deaths a year and billions of dollars in health care costs. The tobacco companies have agreed to the settlement as a means of reducing their future liability and are providing some compensation to States and individuals for the costs they face because of the disease and addiction associated with their products. Regardless of our position on the proposed tobacco settlement, we should all agree to reject this $50 billion special tax break for the industry. Now, some would have us believe that the $50 billion tax credit is part of the tobacco settlement. This is simply not true. In fact, this concept was discussed and soundly rejected during the negotiations between the attorneys general and the tobacco industry. In fact, the States attorneys general strongly oppose this new tax credit. I have a letter from the States attorneys general. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. In that letter they state that they regard this action as ``a substantial alteration of a material term'' of the agreement and that they will ``exercise their option of rejecting the settlement and continuing the prosecution of their lawsuits'' if it is included. Madam President, this secret tax break should never have been written into law in the first place. It should be repealed immediately. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Durbin-Collins amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment to restore $35 million in funding for the State Student Incentive Grant Program. First, I want to thank and recognize the able leadership of the Senator from Rhode Island in this area. I also want to say I very much appreciate the work of the managers of this bill, Senators Specter and Senator Harkin, in working with Senator Reed and myself to find an offset that will allow us to achieve funding for this very important program. The SSIG program has successfully leveraged a relatively small Federal contribution and investment in student aid to build a State- Federal partnership supporting grants to the neediest college students. Last year, a Federal appropriation of $63 million resulted in a match of $784 million in State expenditures for need-based scholarship grants. In the State of Maine alone, 12,000 students received assistance under this important program. Nationally, grants averaging $1,200 were awarded to about 700,000 students. The recipients, Mr. President, come from families with average incomes of $12,000 a year. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, that is below the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake to terminate this program. Every single Federal dollar that it provides goes to students with financial need. The States bear the administrative costs, so every single Federal dollar goes for the grants for these needy students. This program helps to close the widening gap between what students receive in grant assistance and what they are forced to borrow to pay for the ever-increasing costs of a college education. Because of high tuition costs and increased borrowing, students are graduating from college with higher and higher debt burdens. This Congress has recognized the problem that this mountain of debt poses for new graduates. It has attempted to ease that burden by making the interests on student loans tax deductible, but then if we turn around and eliminate the Federal contribution to the SSIG program we will, in fact, be counteracting part of this benefit to the most deserving students by increasing their loan burden. Now, Mr. President, opponents to continuing the SSIG program argue the purpose for the program no longer exists since each of the 50 States have established a grant program. However, this overlooks the importance of SSIG as the Federal-State partnership and the important role this program plays in maintaining the State commitment to these grants. According to the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, 43 States--43 States--would reduce their need-based grants if the SSIG program were eliminated. Some would clearly terminate their grant programs altogether without the SSIG contribution. Clearly, in spite of the impressive efforts ahead by many States to help their neediest students, this program continues to be a critical catalyst for State action. As college costs continue to grow faster than income and grant aid, and as the grant-loan imbalance widens for students of modest means, the need for SSIG is more important than ever before. This Congress has just acknowledged the value of grants by voting for a modest increase in the maximum amount of Pell grants. It would be inconsistent and incredibly poor timing if at the time we are recognizing the need for an increase in the grants under the Pell program, we turn around and reduce assistance under the SSIG program. Mr. President, I recently received a letter from Stephanie D'Amico of Biddeford, ME, who speaks far more eloquently about the importance of this program than I can. I ask unanimous consent her entire letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. I quote just briefly from Stephanie D'Amico's letter. She wrote: College is one of the best investments we can make in America's future. It is critical to a strong democracy and a healthy economy. To me personally it represents opportunity for the future. Unfortunately, a college education is becoming harder and harder to afford. . . . SSIG is one of the best Federal programs helping to provide access to education. . . . Students and their families need help with the costs of college. With students now graduating with decades of debt, loans are not the answer. . . . SSIG is a good, working program that helps students stay in school. Mr. President, if America is truly to remain the land of opportunity, we must ensure that our citizens like Stephanie D'Amico do not face insurmountable obstacles to higher education. This program will help Stephanie D'Amico and many like her to achieve the American dream. I urge support of the Reed-Collins amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, which would cut funding severely for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and increase funding for the Pell Grant Program. There is no stronger supporter of the Pell Grant Program in the U.S. Senate than I. In fact, very shortly I will be introducing legislation to expand working students' eligibility for Pell grants. However, when faced with this amendment, I must ask the question: Are we so poor a country that some must be cold, go hungry, forgo medications so that others may learn? The answer is obvious. This amendment presents a false choice. Maine is well known for its cold and very long winters. Many of Maine's residents, along with the citizens of other Northern States, are heavily dependent on the aid provided by LIHEAP in order to heat their homes during the cold winter months. Without the assistance of LIHEAP, 33,000 of Maine's most vulnerable and needy citizens--I am talking about elderly people, the disabled, and very low-income families--will go without adequate heat during the coming winter or will be forced to forgo medications or even food. We must not allow this to happen. As Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have noted, 70 percent of the people receiving this home heating assistance have incomes under $8,000 a year. We are talking about people who are very needy. This bill's funding for LIHEAP is not excessive. In fact, it's approximately the amount that was spent last year, and that amount was not adequate to serve all of the people needing assistance. Last year this program provided 33,000 Mainers with an average subsidy of $308. That is only enough to buy a couple of tanks of heating oil. For many, this small amount of help is, however, the difference between being in a comfortably heated home and freezing. This is not an excessive expenditure. Failure to appropriate at least this amount will only result in a call for emergency funding later this year, an event that has occurred in each of the past 4 years. I agree with the able and distinguished Senator from Arizona that funding for Pell grants should be increased, but I cannot support a reduction in LIHEAP as a means of accomplishing this. A recent editorial from the Portland Press Herald in my State put it well when it stated: The idea of LIHEAP may seem frivolous to lawmakers from warm, southern States. However, the subsidy remains essential to residents in colder climates. That's especially true now when welfare cuts and a rising cost of living have pushed so many poor families so much closer to the edge. Asking low- income and elderly Mainers to choose between filling their fuel tanks or their cupboards is not fair. I conclude my remarks by stating that asking the U.S. Senate to choose between LIHEAP and Pell grants is also not fair. It is a false choice and I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman, Senator Roth, for the extraordinary work he has done to bring this before us today for passage. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the first major tax cut for the middle class that the Congress has passed since 1981. This historic tax cut bill, along with the companion Balanced Budget Act, represents very good news for the American people. These measures put the Federal Government on the road to a balanced budget, and will provide much-needed tax relief for middle-class families in Maine and across the Nation. There are several small business and education provisions that I am particularly pleased to see included in the legislation before us today. These proposals have been among my highest priorities since coming to the Senate. In fact, the very first bill I introduced as a Senator was designed to provide tax relief for family-owned businesses and farms. I am, therefore, delighted that the Taxpayer Relief Act will provide substantial estate or death tax relief for family-owned businesses and farms, the backbone of our economy in Maine. Effective in January of next year, these businesses and farms will be eligible for a $1.3 million exemption from Federal estate taxes, more than double the current $600,000 exemption. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about providing this relief. Time and again family business owners in Maine have told me of their painful decisions to dismember their companies, to sell them to large out-of-State corporations, in order to avoid saddling their children with enormous debt to pay the estate tax. The tax is wrong. It is simply unfair. We ought to be encouraging family businesses to prosper and to continue from generation to generation. Given that family businesses will create two-thirds of the new jobs in the future, our Tax Code should encourage their creation, expansion, and continuation. The current estate tax structure penalizes job creation and, according to several studies, has actually cost our Nation as many as 220,000 jobs--220,000 jobs lost because of this onerous tax. Passing the estate tax relief provisions of this bill will allow family business owners to invest in their companies, rather than in a platoon of attorneys, accountants, and insurance agents attempting to alleviate the estate tax bite. Adopting this proposal will mean that these businesses and farms can stay in the family, and be passed from generation to generation, from parents to their children, instead of being sold in order to pay taxes as happens all too frequently under the current estate tax laws. These reforms will help keep the family in our family businesses and good jobs in our communities. In addition, the tax package contains some very important reforms that will help make a college education more affordable for middle- income families, another of my top priorities. Mr. President, prior to serving in the Senate, I worked at Husson College, a small college in Bangor, ME, whose students primarily come from lower and middle-income families. Most Husson students are the first members of their family to attend college. At Husson, I came to appreciate the critical role that Pell grants and student loan programs play in making college available to many students, but I also learned that our current programs do far too little to help many middle-class families who have to carry the heavy burden of college costs for their children largely by themselves. This is a very serious problem. I am pleased that this legislation contains several provisions that are specifically designed to make it easier for middle-income families to save for their children's education and to help graduates pay back their student loans. For example, families will be allowed to establish tax-deferred education IRA's that reward them for planning and saving for their children's college education. Especially important, this legislation allows students to deduct up to $2,500 annually in interest on their student loans. Many college graduates are faced with daunting debts that will strain their finances for years. We currently do not do enough for those for whom the road to college ends not with a pot of gold but with a pile of debt. Many college graduates are faced with daunting debts from their student loans that will strain their finances for years. Many students in my home State of Maine, when confronted with this dilemma, either decide not to pursue a college education at all, or decide to drop out of college. That is one important reason why Maine ranks a dismal 49th out of the 50 States in the number of high school graduates going on to college. That is why this student loan interest deduction is so critical to bringing college within reach of many middle-income families. Mr. President, these proposals--the education savings account and the tax deduction for student loan interest--were included in legislation I introduced earlier this year, the College Access and Affordability Act of 1997. I am very pleased to see that they were included in the conference report. Making higher education more accessible and affordable is essential if we are to have a high-quality work force able to compete in a global marketplace in the 21st century. Finally, Mr. President, I want to note several other important provisions that will help our small businesses--the job creators in this country. This legislation 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 many owners of our small mom-and-pop stores that dot the communities throughout our State. Under this package, self-employed workers will be able to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums by the year 2007. Establishing parity 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. Finally, another important provision for small businesses is the restoration of the home office tax deduction, which was nullified by a Supreme Court ruling several years ago. Home-based businesses are exploding all over Maine. This bill will enable many entrepreneurs in Maine and throughout the Nation to once again deduct the very legitimate expenses associated with working out of their homes. Mr. President, in closing, I want to once again commend the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senator Nickles, Senator Moynihan, the ranking minority member, and all of those who have played such a vital role in crafting such historic legislation. It will provide tax relief to our families, to our small businesses, to our family farms, and to our students--to our entrepreneurs. It is a terrific bill that deserves broad bipartisan support. This legislation has my enthusiastic support, and I appreciate very much being able to speak to my colleagues on this issue. Thank you. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues, particularly Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, in announcing our intent to bring bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation to a vote in September. At the State level, Maine has led the Nation on this issue, and the people of my State think the time has come for Congress to step up to the plate and enact meaningful reform. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have spent the past month listening to testimony about illegal campaign contributions. It is not a pretty picture. In my opening statement at the hearings, I observed that our political system suffers from a mania for money. If anything, the hearings have demonstrated that I underestimated just how intense that mania is. Mr. President, we should be embarrassed by how our political system is viewed. Listen to the judgment rendered by Johnny Chung, one of the individuals alleged to have laundered foreign political contributions. ``I see the White House is like a subway--you have to put in coins to open the gates.'' What Mr. Chung did not say, because he did not have to say it, is that the vast majority of hard-working and honest Americans do not have enough coins to make the gates open. This is not a partisan observation. All of us in this Chamber-- Republicans and Democrats alike--should be embarrassed at the perception that the leaders of the greatest Nation on earth are accessible only to those with enough coins. Mr. President, we should be embarrassed that the American people are convinced that we will never reform the system, that we will never put the integrity of our political system ahead of our self-interests. Some argue that the relative quiet of the people means they are satisfied with the status quo, but that is wrong. In this case, silence sends a stronger message of disapproval than the loudest shouts of protest. The message that it sends is that people have given up on us. Look at the reform efforts at the State level, and you will see that it is not that the voters do not believe in campaign finance reform. It is that they do not believe in the U.S. Senate. We all know that if left untreated, the disease that afflicts our political system will only grow worse. With the high cost of television ads, the money frenzy can only grow. Indeed, the television ad race has become the political counterpart of the nuclear arms race characterized by the same insecure feeling that one can never have enough. None of us involved in this effort has all of the answers. We recognize that reforming our campaign finance laws raises difficult issues of public policy and thorny issues of constitutional law. Our approach is not set in stone. We are open to other ideas. We are open to compromise, but we are not open to letting the Senate duck this issue. Like my colleagues, I look forward to working with the leadership of this body to bring this matter to a vote. We have an obligation to the American people to ensure that such a vote comes about, and we are determined to make that happen in September. Mr. President, the American dream has undergone some changes, not all of which are for the better. We are now living in a country in which any millionaire can dream of growing up to be a United States Senator. That may be an acceptable state of affairs during a time of peace and prosperity, when the Government does not need to call upon the people of this Nation to make sacrifices. But the unhealthy mix between money and politics may produce far more worrisome consequences during periods when America is tested. As with all reforms, the time to make them is before they are urgently needed. I look forward to a vigorous debate and vote on this issue in September. I thank my colleagues for working with me on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Transportation appropriations bill and to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Shelby, about the ability of the State of Maine to use funding from this legislation to conduct a National Environmental Protection Act study for improving the travel corridor from Houlton to Fort Kent, ME. Under S. 1048, as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, the State of Maine is expected to receive a much-needed increase of almost $17 million for vital highway programs. This will bring the total for the next fiscal year to approximately $105 million. This additional funding--the $17 million--will enable the Maine Department of Transportation to fund a number of high-priority transportation projects, including the NEPA study, which will help my State tremendously. I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee for their hard work and leadership in ensuring that significant transportation funding increases are available, at a time when setting priorities for scarce tax dollars has never been more challenging. For large rural States like my home State of Maine, the funding in this legislation provides the money necessary to build, repair, maintain, and improve our roads, which are absolutely essential to expanding our economy and to providing our citizens with better job opportunities into the 21st century. In fact, in Maine, studies have shown that approximately 80 percent of all economic development has occurred within 10 miles of our interstate highway. Consequently, it is not surprising that economic activity in central and northern Aroostook County, where I am from, which is not served by the Interstate Highway System, has lagged far behind those areas of the State with access to the four-lane interstate. Earlier this year, the State of Maine completed an initial feasibility study that evaluated several different options for improving the travel corridor between Houlton and Fort Kent, a distance of roughly 125 miles. The initial study was funded by Congress with an appropriation of $800,000 about 3 years ago. Now, the State is prepared to take the next step in this process, which is to conduct a NEPA study on the various options. This study will, among other things, analyze the traffic demand for preliminary design engineering, assess the noise and air quality impact, develop and review alternatives within the corridor, update the construction cost analysis, and prepare an environmental impact statement. The need for this funding, Mr. President, is crystal clear. Upgrading the transportation infrastructure in Aroostook County, the largest county in my State, is essential to strengthening its economy. For example, in order to compete effectively, Aroostook County potato farmers and lumber industries need to improve their ability to transport goods efficiently from northern Maine to their markets. Upgrading the transportation system will also spur new economic development and business investment. The tourism industry, particularly snowmobiling, has absolutely exploded in recent years. But if it is to continue to grow, this promising industry needs an improved road system to bring more snowmobilers to Aroostook County. Similarly, the people of Aroostook County are moving forward in their efforts to redevelop the site of the former Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, ME. An enhanced highway system is absolutely vital to their ability to attract new economic investment that can best utilize the base's outstanding facilities and help to replace the thousands of jobs that were lost when the base closed. Proceeding with this additional study at this time will help us determine how best to improve the travel corridor, and it ultimately will make it easier for northern Maine to compete for new business investments, to find new market opportunities for agricultural, manufactured, and timber- related products, and to produce increased tourism opportunities, as well. I just want to take this opportunity to confirm with the chairman of the subcommittee my understanding that the State of Maine, which has included this project as part of its 20-year statewide transportation plan, can use a portion of the roughly $17 million in higher Federal highway funding from this legislation to pursue and conduct the NEPA study. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor to the chairman of the subcommittee so that he may respond to my inquiry.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his assurances and express my gratitude and thanks to him and his staff for their assistance in this matter. I also want to again applaud his efforts to ensure that we have adequate funding for our transportation infrastructure, which is so vital to this Nation's prosperity. Thank you, Mr. President.