Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator very much for his assistance. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I can engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, regarding the National Weather Service's ongoing top-to-bottom review of its operations and structure. I am taking this opportunity today to express my hope and belief that this review process will conclude that the Weather Service Office in Caribou, ME, should be fully upgraded to a Weather Forecasting Office. I just want to comment very briefly, Mr. President, on a few of the reasons why the Caribou Weather Service Office should be upgraded. In general, it is the Weather Service's policy that weather forecasting offices should cover roughly 17,000 square miles. Right now, the Weather Forecasting Office in Gray, ME--which is more than 230 miles from Caribou--is attempting to provide services for roughly 63,000 square miles, an area more than three times larger than the norm. Given the huge area involved, it is extremely difficult for the small staff of a Weather Service Office to provide the services necessary to ensure public safety. For example, the Weather Service Office currently has only one electrical technician who must service equipment in Frenchville, Caribou, Houlton, and as far south as Millinocket, in Penobscot County. This is an enormous workload for just one employee, particularly in light of the possibility that repairs may be needed at the same time at different locations far away from each other. Accurate and timely weather reports are essential to Aroostook County, the largest county in Maine, for two reasons: one involving public safety, the other an economic concern. Mr. President, northern Maine experiences more than its fair share of severe weather, including blizzards in the winter months. Many of my colleagues have probably heard weather reports in which my hometown of Caribou has recorded the lowest temperature in the Continental United States. Accurate and timely weather reports are essential for public safety. The second reason for upgrading the Weather Service Office centers on the nature of the economy in the county. Natural resource-based industries such as agriculture, logging, and tourism are the mainstay of the county's economy. Our potato farmers, for example, must have quality weather forecasts and reports in order to know best when to plant and harvest their crops. For these public safety and economic reasons, I am convinced that upgrading the Weather Service Office in Caribou is a necessary action for the National Weather Service to undertake, and I hope that the Appropriations Committee will act favorably on upcoming funding requests. Mr. President, I yield the floor so that my distinguished New England neighbor and colleague, Senator Gregg, may respond to my concerns.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I may consume for a brief colloquy.

Ms. COLLINS. I stand corrected.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is particularly troubling to uncover these apparent contracting abuses in the Office of the Inspector General, the very official who is supposed to be the watchdog against waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal departments. Again, I thank the floor managers of this bill for their cooperation, and I appreciate their support of this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I express my appreciation to the very able managers of this legislation, Senator Campbell and Senator Kohl, for their willingness to accept the amendment which has been proposed by myself, Senator Shelby and Senator Grassley. Let me just briefly explain the amendment and its purpose. This amendment would prohibit the inspector general of the Department of Treasury from spending any money on consulting contracts, and it would make a corresponding reduction in the inspector general's budget by cutting it by $1 million. Let me first make clear that this amendment is not intended to affect in any way any audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement function of the Inspector General's Office. The reduction proposed in my amendment is intended to be taken from administrative expenses, specifically the budget classification called ``Other services,'' which is funded in the President's budget at $2.4 million. My amendment would leave $1.4 million available for that classification. I am offering this amendment today because there is clear, disturbing and credible evidence that the incumbent inspector general has abused her contracting authority by spending taxpayer dollars on management studies of questionable value and of excessive cost. For example, in April of this year, press accounts revealed that the inspector general had let a soul-source contract for a management study of her office. This $90,000 contract was awarded without the benefit of fair and open competition, and it was awarded to a friend of hers, someone who had in fact recommended her for the position of inspector general. Mr. President, I have personally reviewed the final product of this contract. It is a 20-page report costing taxpayers $4,500 per page. Another example of questionable activity occurred in September of 1995 when the inspector general awarded another contract, again without full and open competition, for $85,000 that subsequently ballooned to cost more than $300,000. My amendment would curtail these kinds of abuses in contracting by limiting the amount of funds available for this purpose and by prohibiting the inspector general from spending money on consulting services. In the meantime, without prejudging the ultimate outcome, the permanent subcommittee on investigations, of which I am the Chair, will continue its in-depth investigation into the contracting practices of this office. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several newspaper reports documenting these contracting abuses.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. It has a very poor record on human rights issues. It has repeatedly violated trade agreements. It engages in unacceptable weapons proliferation activities. It denies the religious freedom of its citizens. It maintains an antidemocratic posture toward Taiwan and Tibet. And, finally, our Senate investigation into campaign finance abuses has revealed a plan by China to funnel illegal political contributions into American campaigns. Given all of the ramifications, I believe that at an appropriate time and place, the Senate should engage in a full-fledged debate that gives these matters the attention that they truly deserve. In conclusion, I am withholding final judgment on the question of most-favored-nation status for China, but in the meantime, I am expressing my very serious concerns and reservations by supporting the nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Hutchinson's sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I want to make clear that my support of this nonbinding resolution signifies my grave concerns about most- favored-nation status for China rather than a final decision about this important policy question. Last month, the House of Representatives debated a resolution of disapproval that would have denied most-favored-nation status for China as proposed by President Clinton. The House rejected this measure, thereby supporting the Clinton administration's proposal to extend MFN status for China for another year. Given this action by the House, the U.S. Senate will not have a formal debate and vote this year on the President's recommendation. Nevertheless, I recognize that this issue raises some very serious issues that need more debate and consideration than the very brief debate that the Senate has given this issue today. Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I am very troubled by the actions of the Chinese Government in Beijing. It has a very poor record on human rights issues. It has repeatedly violated trade agreements.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I seek 90 seconds, please.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking minority members, Senator Inouye, for accepting this very crucial amendment which I have proudly cosponsored with Senator Snowe. With the recent proliferation of chemical weapons and the increasing uncertainty of rogue nations' ability to wage chemical and biological war, I strongly believe that this additional $2 million in funding is essential to properly address this very serious threat. A joint service core research program will make possible the development of a prototype hybrid integrated sensor array for chemical and biological point detection for personnel use on the battlefield. While it is my hope that some day sensors of this type are not necessary, until such time, I will continue to ensure that our service men and women are not left unaware or unprotected. Again, I extend my sincere thanks to Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for supporting this critical amendment and I thank my fellow Maine colleague, Senator Snowe, for her leadership on this matter as well. Amendment No. 843 (Purpose: To earmark $6.0 million of the funds appropriated in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide for a conventional munitions demilitarization program)

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the members of the Senate Finance Committee, ably led by chairman Roth and ranking member Moynihan, for their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to bring meaningful and much-needed tax relief to the American people. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is extremely important legislation. While it makes many significant changes, I want to focus my remarks on the provisions that will provide long-overdue estate tax relief for family-owned businesses and farms and on those that will help lower- and moderate-income families put their children through college. The first bill I sponsored as a U.S. Senator was targeted death tax relief for family-owned businesses and farms. This was no accident, for I firmly believe that small, family-owned enterprises hold the key to our economic future. It is these family businesses that will create two-thirds of all new jobs for the people of the United States in the 21st century. Regrettably, our current tax code penalizes family-owned businesses by making it difficult, if not impossible in some cases, for families to pass the business down from generation to generation. In fact, fewer than one-third of all family-owned businesses survive the transition from the first generation to the second. Our tax policy should produce the very opposite result, and I am gratified that a strong, bipartisan majority of the Senate Finance Committee recognized this problem and supported action to put us on the right track. Specifically, S. 949 establishes a $1 million exemption from Federal estate taxes for closely-held family businesses, thereby making it easier for parents to pass their business along to their children. My estate tax relief bill, S. 482, contained the very same provision, and I commend the Finance Committee for including it in their legislation which we just passed. The Finance Committee's proposal will help to make real the dreams of those Americans who work long hours to build a business so they can turn it over to their children. It will help individuals like the potato bag manufacturer in northern Maine who would expand his business and hire more new employees were it not for the money he has to invest in estate planning and insurance. And it will help the small businesswoman in Portland, ME, who wishes to leave her restaurant to her son and avoid the problem she faced when her father died and the family had to sell 24 of their 25 restaurants to pay the estate tax bill. Mr. President, by preserving family-owned enterprises, we not only strengthen American businesses, we also strengthen American families. Mr. President, I also want to commend the Finance Committee for including several very important provisions that will help lower- and middle-income families finance college educations for their children. Many of the provisions are similar to those in my legislation, the College Access and Affordability Act of 1997. For the last 30 years, the Federal Government has helped make post- secondary education available to millions of high school students, thereby giving them a chance to fulfill their potential to the greatest extent possible. The primary vehicles for this invaluable Federal assistance to lower-income and middle-income families have been the Pell grant and student loan programs, both of which I wholeheartedly support. But our student aid programs have had the unintended consequence of punishing those families who struggle to save for their children's education and then become ineligible for Federal assistance because of their savings. To its credit, the Finance Committee recognized that with the greatly increased cost of a college education, these families also are deserving of help, and it took several important steps in that direction. First, the bill that we just passed also establishes education investment accounts to help families save for their children's college education. Under this plan, families can contribute up to $2,000 a year to a special savings account and not have to pay taxes on the account's earnings if they use the money for qualified educational expanses, such as room, board, and tuition. Along similar lines, the Finance Committee approved a proposal that allows families who have created Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's] to withdraw funds for post-secondary and graduate education without penalty. Second, the Committee's bill allows annual dedications of up to $2,500 for interest paid on student loans. This will help to soften the financial burden on students like the young woman in my State who recently graduated from college with $18,000 in debt and who returned to her home town in rural Maine where high-paying jobs are simply not available. Finally, the Committee adopted a permanent extension of the section 127 program, which allows employees who receive up to $5,250 in employer-provided tuition assistance to exclude this assistance from their taxable income. We live in times of rapid change when workers may often need new skills to remain employable, and the section 127 program can be the key to making this possible. Taken together, these proposals represent a major step forward in our efforts to help lower-income and middle-income families finance higher education for themselves and their children. These changes will benefit not only our students but also our Nation, for a better educated population will be better able to compete in our global economy. By making education more affordable for all, we also reaffirm that America is the country of opportunity, where success is there for all who are willing to work for it. Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks with the observation that S. 949 is notable not only for what it provides but also for how it was produced. Led by their Chair, the members of the Taxation Committee put aside partisan concerns and crafted a bill which can command widespread support both in Congress and in the country. Despite the rhetoric of those bent on sowing the seeds of division, the legislation benefits all Americans, as reflected in the fact that a family of four earning $30,000 will receive a 53 percent tax cut under the plan. Mr. President, the people of my State want results and not rhetoric, cooperation and not confrontation. The Family Tax Relief Act of 1997 shows what we can accomplish when we honor the wishes of those who sent us here. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will resume consideration of the defense authorization bill. The majority leader has stated that it is his hope that Members will be present to offer their amendments during today's session. However, no rollcall votes will occur today. Senator Lott announced last night that any rollcall votes ordered on or in relation to any amendments offered to the defense bill today will be set aside. In addition, the majority leader has stated that the Senate will begin consideration of the budget reconciliation bill on Monday. Amendments are anticipated to the reconciliation bill. However, any rollcall votes ordered on Monday will be stacked to begin at 9:30 on Tuesday morning as well. Therefore, Senators should be aware that the next series of rollcall votes will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. The majority leader would also like to remind all Members that next week is the last legislative week before the Fourth of July recess. Senators should be prepared for a very busy week of session and rollcall votes beginning on Tuesday and occurring throughout the week as we complete the reconciliation process. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak about S. 930, the College Affordability and Access Act of 1997, which I introduced yesterday. More than 30 years ago, Congress took the historic step of authorizing Federal student aid programs for the purpose of ``making available the benefits of postsecondary education to eligible students.'' Since that time, millions of young Americans have been afforded an opportunity often denied their parents--a college education. During the three decades since the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, both the cost and the importance of postsecondary education have grown dramatically. And, unfortunately, many once again find themselves without the financial resources needed to unlock the door to a better future. There was a time in Maine when a person armed with a high school diploma and a willingness to work hard could expect to get a job in a paper mill and be assured of a very good wage for life. Today, however, the situation is very different. The manager of one mill told me that it has been 10 years since they hired a high school graduate. Similarly, if you visit the recently built recycling mill in East Millinocket, ME, you are likely to see a handful of computer operators using specialized training to run highly technical equipment. At a time when 85 percent of the new jobs require some postsecondary schooling, the challenge for the children of less affluent families is to obtain higher education, and the challenge for us is to make that a possibility. We cannot and should not guarantee our young people success, but we can and should strive to guarantee them opportunity. We have a good record on which to build, as the student aid programs of the Higher Education Act have assisted countless young Americans. Those programs do not, however, do enough to assist middle-class families in coping with the ever-escalating cost of higher education. And they certainly do not do enough to help those for whom the cost of college is a crushing debt load. Mr. President, much of the impetus for this bill comes from my experience working at Husson College, a small college in Bangor, ME, as well as from the education hearings that Senator Jeffords and I held in that city. Husson's students primarily come from lower- and middle- income families; in most cases, they are the first members of their family to attend college. That makes Husson the perfect laboratory from which to assess the strengths and weaknesses of our current student aid programs. From my Husson experience, I came to appreciate the critical role of Pell Grants and student loan programs in opening the doors to college for many students. But I also learned that our current programs do far too little for the many middle-class families who must largely bear the financial burden of opening those doors for their children. We also 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. Indeed, even at a school with moderate tuition, like Husson, a student participating in the Pell Grant and Federal Work Study Programs can expect to graduate not only with a degree but also with a debt of more than $15,000. And if this student goes on to graduate or professional school, the indebtedness could easily exceed $100,000. Missy Chasse, a student who worked for me at Husson, typifies this problem. After graduating with an $18,000 debt, she decided to return to her home town of Ashland in rural Maine where the prospect of a job paying more than $20,000 is remote. Missy is now faced with a daunting debt that will strain her finances for years to come. Many people, confronted with this prospect, simply drop out of college or decide not to go at all. The dilemma facing middle-class American families who have to rely on borrowing to educate their children was captured in a letter I recently received from Maine parents. They wrote: We both work and are caught in the middle--too much income for aid and not enough to support college tuition. Our daughter has almost completed her second year of college with two more to go. She has loans, we have loans, and it is becoming increasingly harder to keep our heads above water. We have another daughter entering college in three years and we wonder how we will be able to swing it. That the experience of this family is widespread is borne out by the statistics. According to the Finance Authority of Maine, the average size of the education loans it guarantees has more than quadrupled during the past 10 years. The prospect of being saddled with a terrifying debt explains why many Maine families decide that the cost of college is simply too great for them. Indeed, Maine ranks a dismal 49th out of the 50 States in the percentage of our young people who decide to go on to higher education. Mr. President, this is the season when Members of this body hit the commencement trail, summoning up their most stirring rhetoric to inspire college graduates to dedicate themselves to serving others. The irony is that the audience is far more likely to see its future not as one of serving its neighbors, but rather as one of servicing its debt. My bill recognizes that we have a solid foundation of financial assistance programs. It seeks to build on that foundation by making needed changes that will provide some measure of debt relief, promote private savings, and encourage employer sponsorship of education. Specifically, the College Affordability and Access Act of 1997 has three components. The first will make the interest on student loans tax deductible. The second will authorize the establishment of tax-exempt education savings accounts. And the third will make permanent the tax exemption for employer-paid tuition for undergraduate programs and extend it to graduate and professional programs. The first component, a small step for Government that will be a big help to students, allows a tax deduction of up to $2,750 in interest that individuals pay on their student loans. It will alleviate some of the financial pain experienced by the recent graduate with the $18,000 debt and the $20,000 salary. While the deduction will be phased out as the graduate's income increases, the vast majority of those with student loans will qualify for all or part of the benefit. Through this change, we will be recognizing that a loan to go to college is not the same as a loan to buy a stereo, but rather an investment in human capital that will pay dividends not only to the borrower but also to our Nation. The second component will allow parents to place $1,000 per year into a tax-exempt savings account for the education of a child. Money withdrawn from the account to pay qualified education expenses will not be taxed. Assuming the family puts $1,000 into the account every year for 18 years and the account earns a modest rate of return, the family can expect to accumulate about $35,000, which will put a big dent in their education expenses. Our education policies must stop penalizing savings. Under current law, families which make financial sacrifices to save for their children's education may face the paradoxical result that they do not qualify for aid programs available to their less prudent neighbors. While this bill will not eliminate that possibility, it will send the clear message that our Government is prepared to encourage and reward those who save for college. The third component seeks to make greater use of the willingness of businesses to further the education of their employees. It will accomplish that in two ways. First, it will make permanent the current tax exemption for employer-paid tuition for undergraduate studies. Second, it will extend this exemption to those attending graduate and professional programs. Mr. President, this bill will benefit families facing the challenge of paying for college; it will benefit students currently pursuing their education; and it will benefit graduates struggling to pay their debts. But the benefits will be far more widespread and significant. In its own small way, the College Affordability and Access Act will give us a better educated population, a more competitive economy, and a society in which the rewards are more equally shared. Most important, it will reaffirm our commitment to the principle that success in America should be there for all who are willing to work for it. Mr. President, I am pleased to tell you this bill has attracted widespread support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter I received from the American Council on Education endorsing S. 930 on its own behalf and on behalf of 12 other educational organizations be printed 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 ``Medicare At Risk: Emerging Fraud in Medicare Programs.'' This hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 25, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy Shea of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. Following morning business, if consent is reached, the Senate will begin consideration of the intelligence authorization bill. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to complete action on the intelligence bill in a reasonable time period and, therefore, Senators can anticipate rollcall votes throughout the day. The majority leader has also indicated that it is his hope that the Senate will be able to proceed to the Department of Defense authorization bill following disposition of the intelligence authorization bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first let me say that I applaud the leadership and the determination of Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel to bring this very important issue of landmine deployment before the Senate. We speak today on behalf of people around the world whose lives are imperiled by deadly explosive devices each day as they till their fields, care for their livestock, or, most tragically of all, walk to school. Antipersonnel landmines have been sown in the Earth in such numbers and spread so broadly and indiscriminately over the planet that they have become a very serious health and safety problem for civilians. According to the International Red Cross, landmines kill or maim someone, often children, every 22 minutes. There are an estimated 100 million mines scattered throughout 68 nations. These weapons of terror inflict injury to little children, to farmers, and to our own service men and women serving the cause of peace far from home. Thus far, in Bosnia, landmines have injured more than 250 soldiers under United Nations or NATO command, and they have killed 29 peacekeepers. In fact, landmines are responsible for every single death of American troops in the Balkans. I have cosponsored the Leahy-Hagel legislation because it is the right thing to do. Passing this legislation would be an act of moral leadership for this country. Although our attention may be focused on our own American men and women put in harm's way as international peacekeepers, the extent of the global epidemic of injury inflicted by these devices is truly astounding and tragic. Each month, 800 people are killed and 1,200 others are maimed by small mines whose triggers cannot tell the difference between the foot of a child and the foot of a soldier. As a Maine newspaper, the Kennebec Journal, pointed out in an editorial this weekend, the landmine is one of the most insidious and pernicious weapons ever created by man. Across the globe, especially in Third World countries, landmines placed during long-forgotten conflicts, some as much as a half-century ago, continue to menace civilian populations. Senator Leahy's bill would draw the line on the deployment of these weapons. This bill will help save the lives and limbs of American peacekeepers as well as of many innocent children in countries around the world. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I want to take this opportunity to highlight a growing problem with securities fraud in this country--a problem which affects thousands of American families who are now investing their hard earned savings in a booming stock market. The problem involves the fraudulent manipulation of the stocks of small companies in scams which can literally wipe out investors who place their trust in unscrupulous brokers and stock promoters. Fraud in the sale of small company stocks has been increasing at an alarming rate. In the typical case, unscrupulous brokerage firms, often operating through intermediaries, purchase large positions in a company which is worthless or of very limited value and then drive its price higher through manipulation. They do this by aggressively cold calling thousands of unsuspecting individuals, often inexperienced in investing, and persuading them to purchase the company's stock by greatly exaggerating its financial prospects. The inevitable effect of this massive sales campaign is to push the price higher, at which point the brokerage firm dumps its shares, leaving the public holding investments which rapidly become worthless. According to published reports and court proceedings, these schemes often utilize other illegal or unethical practices, including: The dissemination of false information on which investors rely, the employment by brokerage firms of persons with criminal records, as well as the use of unlicensed individuals whose only activity is ostensibly to prospect for customers but who often participate in making sales for which they are paid under the table; and the bribing of brokers to assist in the manipulation by recommending the stock to their trusting customers. These securities fraud schemes have been uncovered in recent prosecutions and criminal investigations. At least four grand juries around the country are investigating small-stock manipulation--what may be the financial crime of the 1990's, just as insider trading was the financial crime of the 1980's. Indeed, according to published articles, a Federal grand jury in Los Angeles has even investigated a Federal prosecutor suspected of engaging in securities fraud. And last year, an FBI sting operation in New York City resulted in the arrest of 46 individuals for this type of activity. In recent years, the soaring stock market has attracted millions of new investors, many of them hard working families trying to save for the future or elderly Americans trying to expand their retirement savings. it is understandable that these individuals, confronted with the prospect of astronomical tuition bills for their children or escalating medical costs for themselves, fall prey to sales pitches promising high returns in what are supposed to be the glamour companies of the future. Overall, it is estimated that one in three American households have some of their assets invested in the stock market. Most do not have the time or the resources to carefully scrutinize stock offerings to determine which ones are fraudulent, instead putting their faith in brokers, who, because they are licensed by the Government, the public believes it has reason to trust. Mr. President, some years ago I served as the State of Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, and one of the responsibilities of my department was the protection of investors in my State. While that experience taught me that America has the most dynamic and healthiest capital markets in the world, it also taught me that there is no shortage of con artists and fraudulent schemes. What was true then unfortunately appears to be true today, and regrettably, there is evidence that the problem may be more widespread. While the vast majority of those who work in our securities industry are honest, we must be continually vigilant in safeguarding the integrity of our markets. We must remain committed to combating what appears to be a new wave of securities fraud, involving the intense marketing and subsequent manipulation of the stock offerings of small companies, many with high-tech sounding names. These offerings--when pushed by overly aggressive and fraudulent marketing pitches to average American families and the elderly--present a ripe opportunity to lull the investing public into believing the stock is about to take off. Too often, these stocks do not soar to the heavens but rather fail to the ground. This fraud must be fought on a variety of fronts. The regulators must continue to enforce existing regulations and to watch for illegal activity. The public must be more careful in investing in the stock market. And the Congress must--and will--closely investigate this growing problem of securities fraud. As chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. President. I am concerned about this fraud in the micro-capital markets--about this manipulation of small company stocks by Wall Street bandits. The subcommittee has a long and proud tradition of investigating schemes which rip off innocent consumers and taint the reputations of those who play by the rules. This investigative tradition will continue under my leadership. With more and more Americans entering the stock market each year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will be looking closely at these matters, investigating how these stock manipulation schemes victimize American investors and how we can arrest this emerging securities fraud. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and in the Senate to protect the public from unscrupulous operators who would prey on hard working Americans seeking to participate in the American Dream through investment in the stock market. The expanding economic opportunities presented by a booming stock market should not benefit just the most wealthy Americans, but should benefit average American families as well. As the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I promise you that we will vigorously investigate those who abuse the trust of their fellow citizens seeking to invest their hard earned savings. I further pledge that we will be especially relentless in our efforts to expose schemes which exploit the elderly. During my tenure, the subcommittee will use its investigative authority to shine the light of truth on those who operate in the shadowy fringes of America's capital markets. I thank the Senate for its attention. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by my colleague from Florida, calling for a doubling of our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. Now, some may question why we are calling for such a significant increase in spending as part of a balanced budget agreement. However, I believe that our sense-of-the-Senate resolution is entirely consistent with the goal of a balanced budget, because there is no investment that would yield greater returns for the American taxpayer than an investment in biomedical research. Our nation currently spends billions of dollars each year, both directly and indirectly, to treat and care for chronic diseases. For example, cardiovascular disease costs us $138 billion each year. Alzheimer's disease costs about $100 billion each year, primarily in nursing home and other long-term care costs. Strokes result in health care costs of almost $30 billion annually. And Parkinson's disease costs our society about $6 billion annually. We basically have two choices. We can sit back and continue to pay the bills and endure the suffering, or we can aggressively pursue a national strategy aimed at preventing, delaying, and even curing these devastating and debilitating diseases and conditions. While we are spending billions of dollars each year on patient care, as the Senator from California has pointed out, only 3 cents--3 cents of each health care dollar are currently invested in medical research. Opportunities for progress in biomedical and related health science research have never been better, but currently, we are only funding a fraction of the promising grant applications submitted to NIH. Moreover, not only are the investments in research disproportionately low compared to the cost of patient care, but the potential of research to reduce health care costs is vastly under realized. The work of Dr. Jonas Salk and his colleagues to produce a vaccine for polio serves as a dramatic example of research as a high-yield investment. The lifetime costs of maintaining just two children stricken with polio is greater than all of the money --all of the money--ever spent on the research that virtually eliminated the disease. The potential for achieving even greater savings from health care research is enormous. For example, the Alliance for Aging Research has estimated that a 5-year delay in the onset of Alzheimer's disease could cut health care spending by much as $50 billion annually and that a 5- year delay in the onset of stroke could save our Nation $15 billion a year. This is no time to put the brakes on research spending. Rather, we should accelerate our efforts and increase our commitment to medical research that can cure, prevent or delay disease. This strategy is especially important as we move into the next century when our public health and disability programs will be increasingly strained by the aging of our population. Finally, the cost of disease and disability cannot be measured in dollars alone. Only those who have had to care for a father or a husband whose quality of life has been cut short by a stroke can appreciate how devastating it can be. Or think of the family whose mother or grandmother no longer recognizes her own children or grandchildren because of Alzheimer's disease. These diseases take their toll emotionally as well as financially. They can dramatically and irretrievably alter the lives of the affected individuals and their families, as Senator Mack has so eloquently testified. Therefore, I am very pleased to be joining Senator Mack in offering this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in passing it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Family Friendly Workplace Act, which will permit employers to offer more flexible work schedules to their employees. The lifestyles of today's employees do not always match the traditional 9 to 5, 5-day-a-week schedules of their parents. This legislation is intended to give families greater flexibility in order to better balance the often competing demands of work and family. The legislation will allow private sector employers to offer more flexible work schedules to their employees by providing additional options like comptime, flextime, and biweekly schedules. The legislation doesn't change to amount of compensation--simply the form of compensation. For instance, the legislation allows employers to give their employees the option of receiving overtime in the form of compensatory time off instead of cash wages at a rate of not less than one and one- half hours for each hour of overtime worked. The legislation also allows employers and employees--by mutual agreement--to set up a biweekly schedule consisting of any combination of 80 hours over a 2-week period. For example, an employee could work 45 hours in week one and 35 hours in week two, which would allow them to work nine hours a day and take every other Friday off. In response to the concerns expressed by my Democratic colleagues, I also want to emphasize that participation in these programs is strictly voluntary on the part of both the employee and the employer. No one can be forced to participate, nor can participation be a ``condition of employment.'' In fact, employers are expressly prohibited from coercing, threatening, or intimidating their employees into participating against their will, and violators face a range of sanctions. Mr. President, for many families, time is more valuable than money, and this bill simply extends options that have been widely available-- and extremely popular among employees--in the public sector to the private sector. I have been a manager in the public sector, and I know firsthand how popular and effective these options can be. As former Representative Geraldine Ferraro said during the House debate on the bill allowing Federal agencies to offer flextime and biweekly work schedules, ``Flexible schedules have helped reduce the conflicts between work and personal needs, particularly for working women and others with household responsibilities.'' I certainly agree with former Representative Ferraro on this issue. Finally, Mr. President, I bring to my colleagues' attention a very recent study of over 1,100 women conducted by the Princeton Survey Research. Of the mothers surveyed, 91 percent--91 percent--of those surveyed said that a flexible work schedule was important to them. In fact, the ability to work a flexible work schedule was more important to these working women than the availability of workplace child care or the ability to work part time. Mr. President, we should listen to the women of America. We should listen to the mothers of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is prowomen, it is profamily, and it is proemployee. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the distinguished minority leader and my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion legislation. Let me be clear at the outset that I do not favor abortion. Like most women, I do not believe that abortion should be used as a means of contraception, and I am extremely pleased that the incidence of abortion is on the decline in my State of Maine. In fact, it has dropped by more than 43 percent over the past 10 years. Moreover, while I respect the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy during the early stages, even if it is not a choice that I personally would ever make, I am strongly opposed to all late-term abortions that are not necessary to preserve the physical health or the life of the mother. Fortunately, these procedures are exceedingly rare in my State where just one abortion involving a fetus 20 weeks or older was recorded in all of 1995. We have heard some graphic and extremely disturbing descriptions of the partial-birth-abortion procedure during the debate on this bill. However, all of the procedures used to perform late-term abortions are equally gruesome and horrible and troubling. I agree with the minority leader that this debate should not be about one particular method of abortion, but rather should focus on the larger question of under what circumstances should late-term abortions be legally available. My belief is that late-term abortions, whatever the procedure used, should be banned, except in those rare cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is at serious risk. In my view, Congress is not well equipped to make judgments on specific medical procedures. As the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has said: The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous. Most politicians have neither the training nor the experience to decide which procedure is most appropriate in any given case. These medically difficult and highly personal decisions should be left for families to make in consultation with their doctors. While I do not believe that it is appropriate for us to dictate medical practice, I do believe that Congress does have an appropriate duty to consider the circumstances under which access to abortion by any procedure should be restricted. The Supreme Court, in Roe versus Wade, has set certain parameters for our task by identifying ``viability''--the point at which the fetus is capable of sustaining life outside the womb with or without life support as the defining point in determining the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. The amendment we are proposing today goes beyond S. 6 which simply prohibits a medical procedure and will not prevent a single abortion. I think that is a point that has been missed frequently in this debate. By contrast, the Daschle-Snowe substitute would prohibit the abortion of any viable fetus by any method unless the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent grievous injury to her physical health. Mr. President, some have expressed concern that providing a general exception for the health of the mother creates too large a loophole, that it will allow late-term abortions to be performed simply because the mother is depressed or feeling stressed by the pregnancy. I share this concern. I completely agree. And that is why I opposed the amendment offered by the Senators from California, and it is why I have worked so hard to carefully and tightly limit the exception in this amendment to grievous injury to the mother's physical health. ``Grievous injury'' is narrowly and strictly defined by the amendment as either a ``severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy'' or an ``inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.'' Moreover, grievous injury does not include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or any condition for which the termination of the pregnancy is not medically indicated. This language is far more restrictive, and rightly so, than the broad ``health'' exception debated earlier. Mr. President, we are not talking about healthy mothers aborting healthy fetuses in the final weeks of pregnancy. We are not talking about hypothetical examples developed by rogue doctors as excuses for performing abortions. What we are talking about are the severe medically diagnosable threats to a woman's physical health that are sometimes brought on or aggravated by pregnancy. Let me give my colleagues a few examples. Primary pulmonary hypertension, which can cause sudden death or intractable congestive heart failure; Severe pregnancy-aggravated hypertension with accompanying kidney or liver failure; Complications from aggravated diabetes, such as amputation or blindness; Or an inability to treat aggressive cancers, such as leukemia, breast cancer, or non-Hodgkins lymphoma. These are all conditions that are cited in the medical literature as possible indications for pregnancy terminations. In these rare cases, I believe that we should leave the very difficult decisions about what should be done to the best judgment of the women, their families, and the physicians involved. Mr. President, last month, after weeks of heated debate and discussion, the Maine State legislature rejected a bill to ban partial- birth abortions. During the course of that emotional debate--and this was a very difficult and agonizing debate for all of us--Republican Senator Betty Lou Mitchell of Etna, ME, talked about the decision her daughter-in-law faced 12 years ago. Well into her much-wanted pregnancy, at more than 5 months, the expectant mother learned that her fetus was seriously brain damaged and could not live in the world for more than a few months. Moreover, she was told that carrying the baby to term would prevent her from ever having another child. Faced with this devastating news, she made the heartwrenching decision to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy. Maine State minority leader Jane Amero told me of a similar experience of a friend's daughter who suffered an extremely serious infection very late in her pregnancy. If she had not terminated that pregnancy, this young woman, who very much wanted to be a mother, would have been left sterile at the age of 25. The stories told by these two Maine State senators revealed the reality behind the rhetoric in this highly charged emotional debate. Thankfully, most of us here will never face such wrenching decisions. But we know that there are women who do. And the question is, whether this highly personal choice, under such difficult and tragic medical circumstances, should be made by these women and their families or by the Federal Government. In my judgment, the substitute before us will ensure that late-term abortions are severely limited and limited to only those rare and tragic cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. I urge adoption of the substitute.