Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 253 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Education Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Gregg, Hutchinson, Enzi, Hagel, Roberts, Dorgan, Thomas, Allard, Burns, and Johnson, as original cosponsors of this common sense, bipartisan proposal to help rural schools make better use of federal education funds. I also want to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided over the past two years by the American Association of School Administrators. Last Congress, I introduced the Rural Education Initiative Act--the foundation for today's legislation. I am pleased that the REIA was largely incorporated into the final appropriations bill, thus allowing small, rural school districts to combine funds from four formula grant programs, giving them the flexibility to target funds toward their students' most pressing needs. While the passage of this bill represented substantial progress, it was a one-year authorization only, and no appropriations were provided for the supplemental grant program authorized by the new law. Mr. President, the bill we introduce today strengthens the legislation enacted last year. The Collins-Conrad bill would provide a 5-year authorization of the rural education provisions enacted last year and authorize $150 million annually for the supplemental grant program. Our legislation would benefit school districts with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts have fewer than 600 students. Our legislation would help them overcome some of the most challenging obstacles they face in participating in federal education programs. By way of background, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes formula and competitive grants that help many of our local school districts to improve the education of their students. These federal grants support such laudable goals as the professional development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the classroom, gifted and talented programs, and class size reduction. Schools receive categorical grants, each with its own authorized activities and regulations, each with its own red tape and paperwork. Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for many large urban and suburban school districts, they often do not work well in rural areas for two major reasons. First, formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Main district, for example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the goal of that federal program, yet the school district could not use the funds for any other program. To give school districts more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation would allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical programs and use them to address the school district's highest priorities. The second problem facing many rural school districts is that they are essentially shut out of the competitive programs because they lack the grant-writers and administrators necessary to apply for, win, and manage competitively awarded grants. The Rural Education Improvement Act would remedy this program by providing small, rural districts with a formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of the ESEA. A district would be able to combine this new supplemental grant with the funds from the formula grants and use the combined monies for any purposes that would improve student achievement or teaching quality. Districts might use these funds to hire a new reading or math teacher, fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented students, or purchase computers or library books. Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives would mean for one school Maine School District in Northern Maine with 400 students from the towns of Frenchville and St. Agatha receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,904 for Safe and Drug Free Schools to $9,542 under the Class Size Reduction Act. You can see the problem right there. The amounts of the grants are so small that they really are not useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs is just under $16,000. Yet, each must be applied for separately, used for different--federally mandated-- purposes, and accounted for independently. Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight separate reports, for four programs, to receive this $16,000. Under our bill, this school district would be freed from the multiple applications and reports and would have $16,000 to use for its educational priorities. Moreover, since this district does not have the resources to apply for the competitive grant programs, our legislation would result in a supplemental grant of $34,000 as long as the District foregoes its eligibility for the competitively awarded grants. Under the Rural Education Improvement Act, therefore, the District will have $50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs. But with this flexibility and additional funding come responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period. Schools will be held responsible for what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will happen.'' Mr. President, we must improve our educational system without requiring every school to adopt a plan designed in Washington and without imposing overly burdensome and costly regulations in return for federal assistance. Our bill would allow small, rural districts to use their own strategies for improvement without the encumbrance of onerous federal regulations and unnecessary paperwork. Congress took an important step last year by recognizing that small, rural districts face challenges in using federal programs to help provide a quality education for their students. Due to our efforts last year, the law now reflects Congress's intention to provide these districts more flexibility and additional funding. This legislation will move us from intention to implementation by providing sustained support, flexibility, and funding for our rural schools. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American Association of School Administrators, National Rural Education Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the National Education Association, and I ask unanimous consent that endorsement letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Education Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Gregg, Hutchinson, Enzi, Hagel, Roberts, Dorgan, Thomas, Allard, Burns, and Johnson, as original cosponsors of this common sense, bipartisan proposal to help rural schools make better use of federal education funds. I also want to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided over the past two years by the American Association of School Administrators. Last Congress, I introduced the Rural Education Initiative Act--the foundation for today's legislation. I am pleased that the REIA was largely incorporated into the final appropriations bill, thus allowing small, rural school districts to combine funds from four formula grant programs, giving them the flexibility to target funds toward their students' most pressing needs. While the passage of this bill represented substantial progress, it was a one-year authorization only, and no appropriations were provided for the supplemental grant program authorized by the new law. Mr. President, the bill we introduce today strengthens the legislation enacted last year. The Collins-Conrad bill would provide a 5-year authorization of the rural education provisions enacted last year and authorize $150 million annually for the supplemental grant program. Our legislation would benefit school districts with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts have fewer than 600 students. Our legislation would help them overcome some of the most challenging obstacles they face in participating in federal education programs. By way of background, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes formula and competitive grants that help many of our local school districts to improve the education of their students. These federal grants support such laudable goals as the professional development of teachers, the incorporation of technology into the classroom, gifted and talented programs, and class size reduction. Schools receive categorical grants, each with its own authorized activities and regulations, each with its own red tape and paperwork. Unfortunately, as valuable as these programs may be for many large urban and suburban school districts, they often do not work well in rural areas for two major reasons. First, formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Main district, for example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the goal of that federal program, yet the school district could not use the funds for any other program. To give school districts more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation would allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical programs and use them to address the school district's highest priorities. The second problem facing many rural school districts is that they are essentially shut out of the competitive programs because they lack the grant-writers and administrators necessary to apply for, win, and manage competitively awarded grants. The Rural Education Improvement Act would remedy this program by providing small, rural districts with a formula grant in lieu of eligibility for the competitive programs of the ESEA. A district would be able to combine this new supplemental grant with the funds from the formula grants and use the combined monies for any purposes that would improve student achievement or teaching quality. Districts might use these funds to hire a new reading or math teacher, fund professional development, offer a program for gifted and talented students, or purchase computers or library books. Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives would mean for one school Maine School District in Northern Maine with 400 students from the towns of Frenchville and St. Agatha receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,904 for Safe and Drug Free Schools to $9,542 under the Class Size Reduction Act. You can see the problem right there. The amounts of the grants are so small that they really are not useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs is just under $16,000. Yet, each must be applied for separately, used for different--federally mandated-- purposes, and accounted for independently. Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight separate reports, for four programs, to receive this $16,000. Under our bill, this school district would be freed from the multiple applications and reports and would have $16,000 to use for its educational priorities. Moreover, since this district does not have the resources to apply for the competitive grant programs, our legislation would result in a supplemental grant of $34,000 as long as the District foregoes its eligibility for the competitively awarded grants. Under the Rural Education Improvement Act, therefore, the District will have $50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs. But with this flexibility and additional funding come responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period. Schools will be held responsible for what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will happen.'' Mr. President, we must improve our educational system without requiring every school to adopt a plan designed in Washington and without imposing overly burdensome and costly regulations in return for federal assistance. Our bill would allow small, rural districts to use their own strategies for improvement without the encumbrance of onerous federal regulations and unnecessary paperwork. Congress took an important step last year by recognizing that small, rural districts face challenges in using federal programs to help provide a quality education for their students. Due to our efforts last year, the law now reflects Congress's intention to provide these districts more flexibility and additional funding. This legislation will move us from intention to implementation by providing sustained support, flexibility, and funding for our rural schools. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American Association of School Administrators, National Rural Education Association, the Association of Educational Service Agencies, and the National Education Association, and I ask unanimous consent that endorsement letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to introduce the Teacher Support Act of 2001. We are very pleased to be joined by our good friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu, in proposing this legislation. Senator Kyl and I crafted this bill to help our teachers when they pursue professional development or pay for supplies for their classrooms. Our legislation has two major provisions. First, it will allow teachers and teacher aides to take an above-the- line deduction for their professional development expenses. Thus, educators who don't itemize their deductions will still be able to benefit from tax-favored treatment for their professional development. Second, the legislation will grant educators a tax credit of up to $100 for books, supplies, and other materials that they purchase for their classrooms. According to a study by the National Education Association, the average public school teacher spends more than $400 annually on classroom supplies. This sacrifice, I think, is typical of the dedication of many of our schoolteachers toward their students. While our legislation provides some financial assistance to educators, its ultimate beneficiaries will be their students. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the most important prerequisite for students' success. Educational researchers have demonstrated over and over again the close relationship between qualified educators and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and extending their level of competence. Mr. President, when I meet with teachers from my State of Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthy pursuit. As President Bush has put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets.'' The willingness of Maine's teachers to fund their own professional development activities has deeply impressed me. For example, an English teacher, who serves on my education advisory committee, told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She then came back and shared her new knowledge with all of the teachers in her department at Bangor High School. She is typical of the many educators who generously reach into their own pockets to pay for professional development and to purchase materials to enhance their teaching. Let me explain how our legislation works in terms of real dollars. In my home State, the average yearly starting salary of a public school teacher is about $23,300. Under the current law, even a teacher who is earning this modest salary cannot deduct the first $466 in professional development expenses that he or she paid for out-of-pocket. That is because of the requirement in the current law that sets a floor of 2 percent that has to be reached before the cost of the course or other professional development is deductible. Moreover, under current law, professional development expenses above $466 can be deducted only if the teacher itemizes his or her deductions. Only about one-third of our Nation's schoolteachers do itemize their tax deductions. Our legislation would enable all educators, regardless of whether or not they itemize deductions, to receive tax relief for professional development expenses. I greatly admire the many educators who have voluntarily financed additional education to improve their skills so that they may better serve their students. I admire those teachers who purchase books, supplies, equipment, and other materials for their students in order to enhance their teaching. I hope this change in our Tax Code will encourage educators to continue their formal course work in the subject matter they teach and to attend conferences to give them new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. This bill will reimburse educators for a small part of what they invest in our children's future. This money would be well spent. Investing in education helps us to build one of the most important assets for our country's future--a well educated population. We need to ensure that our public schools have the very best educators possible in order to bring out the very best in our students. Last year, Senator Kyl and I offered a similar version of this legislation as an amendment to the Affordable Education Act of 2000. Our amendment enjoyed overwhelming support and passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0. Unfortunately, the underlying bill was not taken up by the House of Representatives. This year, we are very pleased that President Bush has made the classroom supplies portion of our bill part of his education platform, and that our legislation has received the support of the National Education Association. Our hope is that the bill will become law before the end of the year. We urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to introduce the Teacher Support Act of 2001. We are very pleased to be joined by our good friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu, in proposing this legislation. Senator Kyl and I crafted this bill to help our teachers when they pursue professional development or pay for supplies for their classrooms. Our legislation has two major provisions. First, it will allow teachers and teacher aides to take an above-the- line deduction for their professional development expenses. Thus, educators who don't itemize their deductions will still be able to benefit from tax-favored treatment for their professional development. Second, the legislation will grant educators a tax credit of up to $100 for books, supplies, and other materials that they purchase for their classrooms. According to a study by the National Education Association, the average public school teacher spends more than $400 annually on classroom supplies. This sacrifice, I think, is typical of the dedication of many of our schoolteachers toward their students. While our legislation provides some financial assistance to educators, its ultimate beneficiaries will be their students. Other than involved parents, a well-qualified teacher is the most important prerequisite for students' success. Educational researchers have demonstrated over and over again the close relationship between qualified educators and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and extending their level of competence. Mr. President, when I meet with teachers from my State of Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthy pursuit. As President Bush has put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets.'' The willingness of Maine's teachers to fund their own professional development activities has deeply impressed me. For example, an English teacher, who serves on my education advisory committee, told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She then came back and shared her new knowledge with all of the teachers in her department at Bangor High School. She is typical of the many educators who generously reach into their own pockets to pay for professional development and to purchase materials to enhance their teaching. Let me explain how our legislation works in terms of real dollars. In my home State, the average yearly starting salary of a public school teacher is about $23,300. Under the current law, even a teacher who is earning this modest salary cannot deduct the first $466 in professional development expenses that he or she paid for out-of-pocket. That is because of the requirement in the current law that sets a floor of 2 percent that has to be reached before the cost of the course or other professional development is deductible. Moreover, under current law, professional development expenses above $466 can be deducted only if the teacher itemizes his or her deductions. Only about one-third of our Nation's schoolteachers do itemize their tax deductions. Our legislation would enable all educators, regardless of whether or not they itemize deductions, to receive tax relief for professional development expenses. I greatly admire the many educators who have voluntarily financed additional education to improve their skills so that they may better serve their students. I admire those teachers who purchase books, supplies, equipment, and other materials for their students in order to enhance their teaching. I hope this change in our Tax Code will encourage educators to continue their formal course work in the subject matter they teach and to attend conferences to give them new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. This bill will reimburse educators for a small part of what they invest in our children's future. This money would be well spent. Investing in education helps us to build one of the most important assets for our country's future--a well educated population. We need to ensure that our public schools have the very best educators possible in order to bring out the very best in our students. Last year, Senator Kyl and I offered a similar version of this legislation as an amendment to the Affordable Education Act of 2000. Our amendment enjoyed overwhelming support and passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0. Unfortunately, the underlying bill was not taken up by the House of Representatives. This year, we are very pleased that President Bush has made the classroom supplies portion of our bill part of his education platform, and that our legislation has received the support of the National Education Association. Our hope is that the bill will become law before the end of the year. We urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Biomass Energy Equity Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Boxer, my colleague from California. This legislation makes a commonsense change to the renewable energy production tax credit by expanding it to include additional types of biomass plants. I would like to take a few minutes now to discuss the need for this important bill and to describe what it would do. Simply put, biomass energy production uses combustion to turn wood and organic waste into energy in an environmentally sound process. Biomass takes a public liability, organic waste, and converts it into a public asset, energy. The renewable energy production tax credit enacted in 1992 provides incentives to the solid-fuel biomass and wind energy industry to develop economically viable and environmentally responsible renewable sources of electricity. In enacting that legislation, Congress recognized that biomass energy offers substantial environmental benefits, specifically a reduced dependence on oil and coal, a desirable alternative to open field burnings and the landfilling of organic material, and a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the 1992 legislation was drafted too narrowly to realize the full benefits of biomass energy production. The 1992 act narrowly defined an eligible biomass facility as including only so- called closed-loop biomass plants. Closed-loop biomass is a hypothetical form of electricity generation where the fuel is planted, grown, and harvested specifically and solely for the fuel of the power plant. This definition rules out the significant environmental benefit of disposal of organic waste otherwise destined for a landfill or field-burning and, therefore, remains unused. Since the biomass tax credit was passed, no taxpayer, not one, has taken advantage of the tax benefit. Simply put, the closed-loop tax credit is not a sufficient incentive to develop a costly ``fuel plantation,'' which entails large-scale land purchases, property taxes, and growing material for the sole purpose of burning it. By demanding that newly grown material be used rather than organic waste, the closed-loop biomass definition flies in the face of the commonly accepted environmental principle that products should be put to as many ``highest value'' uses as possible. The legislation that I introduce today would expand the eligibility of the biomass tax credit to include conventional biomass plants. This legislation is designed to encourage a source of energy generation that offers substantial air quality, waste management, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The national biomass industry currently uses over 22,000,000 tons of wood waste a year. The waste the biomass industry converts into energy otherwise would be disposed of in one of three ways: burned in an open field, which generates pollution instead of energy; landfilled, where it fills limited landfill space and biodegrades, emitting methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases; or left in the woods or fields, increasing the risk and severity of forest fires. The air quality benefits of biomass energy are of particular importance. According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an organization of all the Northeastern States' Air Quality Bureaus, biomass energy produces less nitrogen oxide than alternatives and generates virtually no sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or mercury. Biomass energy production also results in a net reduction of greenhouse gases. In addition to their environmental benefits, biomass plants contribute to the economy of many rural towns throughout America. Because of their dependence on organic waste, biomass facilities are usually located in rural areas where they are often important engines of economic growth. For example, in the small town of Sherman, Maine, a biomass facility provides 56 percent of the property tax base. It also directly employs 24 individuals and indirectly provides work for hundreds of truck drivers, wood operators, mill workers and maintenance contractors. In another small town of Maine, Athens, a biomass facility provides a third of that small town's tax base and directly employs 20 people, while supporting a local wood operator who, in turn, employs 40 people. The point is, the economy in many of the small towns in Maine, in towns such as Livermore, Ashland, Greenville, Fort Fairfield, Stratton, and West Enfield benefit considerably from these biomass facilities. In total, there are over 100 biomass facilities in the United States, representing an investment in excess of $7 billion. These facilities contribute jobs, property taxes and a disposal point for waste products. In addition, rural biomass facilities provide ash for use by local farmers, reducing their purchases of lime. I understand there is regularly more demand for the ash produced by these biomass plants than there is supply. With biomass energy production, nothing is wasted. Biomass turns waste products--the byproducts of timber, paper or farming operations-- into needed energy, wasting nothing. Even the ash is returned to the earth to grow organic matter yielding both crops and waste to generate still more electricity. We in Congress often discuss ways to help rural America. This proposal offers an opportunity to do so in a manner that not only benefits the economy of small towns in rural America but also in a way that generates considerable environmental benefits. This measure makes both economic and environmental sense. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and me in supporting this important legislation and working for its passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Biomass Energy Equity Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Boxer, my colleague from California. This legislation makes a commonsense change to the renewable energy production tax credit by expanding it to include additional types of biomass plants. I would like to take a few minutes now to discuss the need for this important bill and to describe what it would do. Simply put, biomass energy production uses combustion to turn wood and organic waste into energy in an environmentally sound process. Biomass takes a public liability, organic waste, and converts it into a public asset, energy. The renewable energy production tax credit enacted in 1992 provides incentives to the solid-fuel biomass and wind energy industry to develop economically viable and environmentally responsible renewable sources of electricity. In enacting that legislation, Congress recognized that biomass energy offers substantial environmental benefits, specifically a reduced dependence on oil and coal, a desirable alternative to open field burnings and the landfilling of organic material, and a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the 1992 legislation was drafted too narrowly to realize the full benefits of biomass energy production. The 1992 act narrowly defined an eligible biomass facility as including only so- called closed-loop biomass plants. Closed-loop biomass is a hypothetical form of electricity generation where the fuel is planted, grown, and harvested specifically and solely for the fuel of the power plant. This definition rules out the significant environmental benefit of disposal of organic waste otherwise destined for a landfill or field-burning and, therefore, remains unused. Since the biomass tax credit was passed, no taxpayer, not one, has taken advantage of the tax benefit. Simply put, the closed-loop tax credit is not a sufficient incentive to develop a costly ``fuel plantation,'' which entails large-scale land purchases, property taxes, and growing material for the sole purpose of burning it. By demanding that newly grown material be used rather than organic waste, the closed-loop biomass definition flies in the face of the commonly accepted environmental principle that products should be put to as many ``highest value'' uses as possible. The legislation that I introduce today would expand the eligibility of the biomass tax credit to include conventional biomass plants. This legislation is designed to encourage a source of energy generation that offers substantial air quality, waste management, and greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The national biomass industry currently uses over 22,000,000 tons of wood waste a year. The waste the biomass industry converts into energy otherwise would be disposed of in one of three ways: burned in an open field, which generates pollution instead of energy; landfilled, where it fills limited landfill space and biodegrades, emitting methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases; or left in the woods or fields, increasing the risk and severity of forest fires. The air quality benefits of biomass energy are of particular importance. According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an organization of all the Northeastern States' Air Quality Bureaus, biomass energy produces less nitrogen oxide than alternatives and generates virtually no sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or mercury. Biomass energy production also results in a net reduction of greenhouse gases. In addition to their environmental benefits, biomass plants contribute to the economy of many rural towns throughout America. Because of their dependence on organic waste, biomass facilities are usually located in rural areas where they are often important engines of economic growth. For example, in the small town of Sherman, Maine, a biomass facility provides 56 percent of the property tax base. It also directly employs 24 individuals and indirectly provides work for hundreds of truck drivers, wood operators, mill workers and maintenance contractors. In another small town of Maine, Athens, a biomass facility provides a third of that small town's tax base and directly employs 20 people, while supporting a local wood operator who, in turn, employs 40 people. The point is, the economy in many of the small towns in Maine, in towns such as Livermore, Ashland, Greenville, Fort Fairfield, Stratton, and West Enfield benefit considerably from these biomass facilities. In total, there are over 100 biomass facilities in the United States, representing an investment in excess of $7 billion. These facilities contribute jobs, property taxes and a disposal point for waste products. In addition, rural biomass facilities provide ash for use by local farmers, reducing their purchases of lime. I understand there is regularly more demand for the ash produced by these biomass plants than there is supply. With biomass energy production, nothing is wasted. Biomass turns waste products--the byproducts of timber, paper or farming operations-- into needed energy, wasting nothing. Even the ash is returned to the earth to grow organic matter yielding both crops and waste to generate still more electricity. We in Congress often discuss ways to help rural America. This proposal offers an opportunity to do so in a manner that not only benefits the economy of small towns in rural America but also in a way that generates considerable environmental benefits. This measure makes both economic and environmental sense. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and me in supporting this important legislation and working for its passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Mr. Kerry pertaining to the introduction of S. 162 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kerry is a true friend of fishermen and, as ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and in mine. The release last summer of the movie ``The Perfect Storm'' provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and the dangers associated with earning a living in the fishing industry. Based on a true story, this movie, while very compelling, merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Every day, members of our fishing community struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie. Year in and year out, commercial fishing is among our Nation's most dangerous occupations. According to the data compiled by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 140 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation. The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing communities as a year marked by tragedy. The year began with the loss of the trawler Two Friends, 12 miles off the coast of York, ME, on January 25. Two of the three crew members died in icy waters after their vessel capsized in 16-foot seas. The year concluded with yet another tragedy, the loss of the scallop dragger Little Raspy on December 14. Three fishermen died when the 30-foot vessel sank in Chandler Bay near Jonesport, ME. All told, nine commercial fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine last year. That exceeded the combined casualties of the 3 previous years. The death of a 27-year-old fisherman just a few days ago in the Gulf of Maine adds to the grief endured by those in Maine's small, close- knit fishing communities still trying to cope with the tragedies of the last year. Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been even worse. Heroic acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most of these circumstances, the fishermen were returned to their loved ones and families because they had access to safety equipment that made all the difference between life and death. Shawn Rich, the surviving crew member of the vessel Two Friends, was found wearing an immersion suit and clinging to the vessel's emergency position indicating radio beacon, or EPIRB. That equipment is what made the difference for him and allowed him to be rescued. The EPIRB strobe light was spotted by a Coast Guard helicopter despite visibility that was less than a quarter of a mile. His immersion suit, which can extend survival to as many as 6 hours in the icy waters of the North Atlantic, protected the fisherman from water temperatures that would have resulted in death by hypothermia after less than 10 minutes of unprotected exposure. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. These requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the boat is traveling from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices, or immersion suits which can help protect fishermen from exposure, as well as to increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to the Coast Guard search and rescue personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. This equipment is absolutely critical to surviving an emergency at sea. Maggie Raymond of South Berwick, ME, the owner of the fishing vessel Olympia, put it well when she said: It is just not possible to overstate the importance of the safety equipment. Along the coast of Maine, fishing communities continue to mourn the nine fishermen lost last year. At the same time, 13 fishermen were saved because they were able to get into a survival suit on time or to get into the liferaft, or because they were found literally clinging to an EPIRB. Without this life-safety equipment, the casualty toll would have been much higher. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, however, the cost of purchasing or maintaining liferafts, immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with essential expenses such as loan payments, wages, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made much more difficult by a regulatory framework that limits the amount of time a fisherman can spend at sea and gear alterations that are used to manage our marine resources. Most of the fishermen whom I know are more than willing to do their part to sustain our marine resources. But the reality is that when fishermen are required to limit their catch, they are also limited in their ability to generate sufficient income to meet the costs associated with maintaining their vessels. The bill I am introducing today makes it clear that fishermen should not have to compromise their safety in order to make a living in their chosen occupation. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001 lends fisherman a helping hand in preparing in case disaster strikes. My legislation provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit would be capped at $1,500. The items I have mentioned can literally cost thousands of dollars. The tax credit will make this life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen who currently face more limited options under the Federal Tax Code. Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies, far too many losses. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea. I hope as part of our tax deliberations this year this important legislation will be enacted and signed into law. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kerry is a true friend of fishermen and, as ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and in mine. The release last summer of the movie ``The Perfect Storm'' provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and the dangers associated with earning a living in the fishing industry. Based on a true story, this movie, while very compelling, merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Every day, members of our fishing community struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie. Year in and year out, commercial fishing is among our Nation's most dangerous occupations. According to the data compiled by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 140 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation. The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing communities as a year marked by tragedy. The year began with the loss of the trawler Two Friends, 12 miles off the coast of York, ME, on January 25. Two of the three crew members died in icy waters after their vessel capsized in 16-foot seas. The year concluded with yet another tragedy, the loss of the scallop dragger Little Raspy on December 14. Three fishermen died when the 30-foot vessel sank in Chandler Bay near Jonesport, ME. All told, nine commercial fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine last year. That exceeded the combined casualties of the 3 previous years. The death of a 27-year-old fisherman just a few days ago in the Gulf of Maine adds to the grief endured by those in Maine's small, close- knit fishing communities still trying to cope with the tragedies of the last year. Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been even worse. Heroic acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most of these circumstances, the fishermen were returned to their loved ones and families because they had access to safety equipment that made all the difference between life and death. Shawn Rich, the surviving crew member of the vessel Two Friends, was found wearing an immersion suit and clinging to the vessel's emergency position indicating radio beacon, or EPIRB. That equipment is what made the difference for him and allowed him to be rescued. The EPIRB strobe light was spotted by a Coast Guard helicopter despite visibility that was less than a quarter of a mile. His immersion suit, which can extend survival to as many as 6 hours in the icy waters of the North Atlantic, protected the fisherman from water temperatures that would have resulted in death by hypothermia after less than 10 minutes of unprotected exposure. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. These requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the boat is traveling from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices, or immersion suits which can help protect fishermen from exposure, as well as to increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to the Coast Guard search and rescue personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. This equipment is absolutely critical to surviving an emergency at sea. Maggie Raymond of South Berwick, ME, the owner of the fishing vessel Olympia, put it well when she said: It is just not possible to overstate the importance of the safety equipment. Along the coast of Maine, fishing communities continue to mourn the nine fishermen lost last year. At the same time, 13 fishermen were saved because they were able to get into a survival suit on time or to get into the liferaft, or because they were found literally clinging to an EPIRB. Without this life-safety equipment, the casualty toll would have been much higher. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, however, the cost of purchasing or maintaining liferafts, immersion suits, and EPIRBs must compete with essential expenses such as loan payments, wages, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made much more difficult by a regulatory framework that limits the amount of time a fisherman can spend at sea and gear alterations that are used to manage our marine resources. Most of the fishermen whom I know are more than willing to do their part to sustain our marine resources. But the reality is that when fishermen are required to limit their catch, they are also limited in their ability to generate sufficient income to meet the costs associated with maintaining their vessels. The bill I am introducing today makes it clear that fishermen should not have to compromise their safety in order to make a living in their chosen occupation. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001 lends fisherman a helping hand in preparing in case disaster strikes. My legislation provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit would be capped at $1,500. The items I have mentioned can literally cost thousands of dollars. The tax credit will make this life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen who currently face more limited options under the Federal Tax Code. Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies, far too many losses. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea. I hope as part of our tax deliberations this year this important legislation will be enacted and signed into law. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that President Bush today has sent forth to the Congress a package of education reforms that carries through on his promise to make improving the education of our children his top priority. I believe the program he has proposed sets forth the basis for a bipartisan reform bill that I hope we will very shortly consider. Last August, President Bush traveled to Maine with, Roderick Paige, now his Secretary of Education, and met with educators from my State. I was extremely impressed with his heartfelt commitment to improving the education of all the children in America, and with the progress that he has made in the State of Texas on what is perhaps the greatest challenge our country faces; that is, narrowing the achievement gap between disadvantaged, low-income children and their more advantaged peers. We know today that 70 percent of the fourth graders in the highest poverty schools cannot read at the basic level. That is both shameful and unacceptable, and it is a compelling reason why I so strongly support the President's pledge to leave no child behind. I am particularly pleased that his education package contains two provisions that will be very helpful to my home State of Maine. I am very proud of Maine's public schools. We do very well in providing a quality education for all of our children. But we, like the Presiding Officer, have many school districts that are very small. They find it very difficult to cope with the rules, redtape and paperwork that apply to literally hundreds of Federal programs. The President's proposal would allow school districts to consolidate many of these programs and use the money for their most pressing needs. One school may need to hire more math and science teachers. Another may need to have computers in the classroom. Still another may need to provide a new program for gifted and talented programs. Yet another may have new construction needs. By allowing more flexibility in the use of Federal funds, President Bush has sent a strong signal that he trusts parents, teachers, and local school boards to know what is best for their students and give them the flexibility they need while holding them strictly accountable for improved student achievement. Isn't that what really counts? We want to be certain that our children are learning. What we don't need is too much or our educators' attention diverted to whether or not they filled out some Federal form correctly. I am very pleased that is an important focus of President Bush's election package. I am also delighted that he has included legislation authored by Senator Kyl of Arizona and myself that will allow teachers to have a tax deduction of up to $400 to help defray the costs when teachers, out of their own pockets, buy supplies for their classrooms. We all know teachers do this every day. Indeed, according to a study by the National Education Association, the average K-12 teacher spends $408 annually on classroom materials. By enacting our proposal, we can send a message of appreciation to teachers who are so dedicated to their students that they reach deep into their own pockets to buy supplies to enhance their classrooms. We ought to help these dedicated professionals defray the costs associated with such classroom expenses. I would like to see that bill broadened to allow all teachers to deduct the costs of professional development courses they undertake at their own expense. I know in the State of Maine we have many dedicated teachers who, at their own expense, pursue their education to make them even better teachers. I think we should help defray those expenses as well. I look forward to working as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, with the Presiding Officer, Senator Judd Gregg who has been such a leader on this issue, our distinguished chairman, Jim Jeffords, and with many on both sides of the aisle who are committed to the goals and the challenges the President has set forth for us today. The President has challenged us to ensure that every child in America, no matter where she lives or the income level of her family, will have the very best public education possible. I intend to answer the President's challenge. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield any remaining time of my 5 minutes to Mr. Gregg, the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001. This legislation, which is an updated version of the measure we introduced in the 106th Congress, will provide our veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the Partnership for Veterans Education, a broad coalition including over 40 veterans service organizations and education associations, our legislation provides a new model for today's G.I. Bill that is logical, fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our veterans. The original G.I. Bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post-service education and training opportunities, including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the G.I. Bill. Since that time, the G.I. Bill has seen a number of changes but has continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has served our country well over the past 15 years. However, the value of the educational benefit assistance it provides has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value as a means to help our men and women in uniform readjust to civilian life after military service. This point really hit home for me when I met last year with representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans Education Programs. They told me of the ever-increasing difficulties that service members are facing in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for education and training. For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of higher education and those required to help support a family. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam era G.I. Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Before the reforms of last year, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it once purchased. In constant dollars, the amount was the second-lowest level of assistance ever extended under the G.I. Bill to those who served in the defense of our country. While we made progress last year in increasing stipend levels under the G.I. Bill, the reforms fell drastically short of allocating sufficient funds to cover the current cost of higher education. Moreover, the increase failed to address the structural reforms needed to ensure that the G.I. Bill provides sufficient funds for the education of our nation's veterans long into the 21st Century. To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Our new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This common sense provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at recruitment. The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $650 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $23,400. Under the new benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for this academic year would be $1025, producing a new total benefit of $36,900 for the four academic years. By using our benchmark, which is updated annually by the College Board, the G.I. Bill benefits will truly reflect the current cost of higher education. Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform bill of 2001. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which goes a long way towards reforming our campaign system. I have long supported campaign finance reform. When I ran for the Senate from Maine in 1996 I promised my constituents that I would be a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. That pledge led to my decision to cosponsor the campaign finance reform that was introduced in 1997 by Senators McCain and Feingold. Unfortunately, comprehensive campaign finance reform efforts have been thwarted in the past two Congresses. This time, though, we have reason for optimism due to new and renewed support. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 takes a number of important steps towards fixing a broken system. First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as ``soft money.'' ``Soft money'' has made the current law's restrictions and contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions essentially meaningless. Second, the bill requires disclosure by the sponsors of certain issue ads that corporations and labor unions run in the period leading up to an election. Third, the bill codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck to ensure that nonunion members are not obligated to subsidize the political activities of labor unions. And finally, the bill makes it clear that foreign nationals may not contribute any funds--hard or soft--to federal, state, or local elections. My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an equal political voice. Mainers have backed their commitment to an open political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, town meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate issues and make decisions are still prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. Maine's tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine citizens feel strongly about reforming our federal campaign laws, as do I. The problem with soft money was painfully evident during the 1997 hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by my good friend, Senator Thompson. During those investigations, we heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. We also heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz who testified that the $300,000 he spend to gain access to the White House was not enough and that, next time, he would spend $600,000. And we heard of individuals, such as Chinese cigarette magnate Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated nearly $600,000 in political contributions during the 1996 election cycle. Sioeng, we later discovered, was a self-described agent of the Chinese government. Soft money donations soared in the 2000 presidential election cycle, nearly doubling from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in 2000. At the same time, regulated, hard money donations increased a little more than 10-percent. Soft money, then, is the crest of the wave that has swamped our campaign finance system and shaken public confidence in our government. I applaud the bipartisan efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold and pledge my continued support to see this legislation become law this year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in introducing the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001. This legislation, which is an updated version of the measure we introduced in the 106th Congress, will provide our veterans with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the Partnership for Veterans Education, a broad coalition including over 40 veterans service organizations and education associations, our legislation provides a new model for today's G.I. Bill that is logical, fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our veterans. The original G.I. Bill was enacted in 1944. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post-service education and training opportunities, including more than 2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who served bravely in World War II and then came back home to resume his education with assistance from the G.I. Bill. Since that time, the G.I. Bill has seen a number of changes but has continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of the educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in between. Since the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. Bill in 1985. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has served our country well over the past 15 years. However, the value of the educational benefit assistance it provides has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value as a means to help our men and women in uniform readjust to civilian life after military service. This point really hit home for me when I met last year with representatives of the Maine State Approving Agency (SAA) for Veterans Education Programs. They told me of the ever-increasing difficulties that service members are facing in using the G.I. Bill's benefits for education and training. For example, the Maine representatives told me that the majority of today's veterans are married and have children. Yet, the Montgomery G.I. Bill often does not cover the cost of tuition to attend a public institution, let alone the other costs associated with the pursuit of higher education and those required to help support a family. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam era G.I. Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Before the reforms of last year, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a mere 8% increase over a time period when inflation has nearly doubled, and a dollar buys only half of what it once purchased. In constant dollars, the amount was the second-lowest level of assistance ever extended under the G.I. Bill to those who served in the defense of our country. While we made progress last year in increasing stipend levels under the G.I. Bill, the reforms fell drastically short of allocating sufficient funds to cover the current cost of higher education. Moreover, the increase failed to address the structural reforms needed to ensure that the G.I. Bill provides sufficient funds for the education of our nation's veterans long into the 21st Century. To address these problems, we are offering a modern version of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Our new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for G.I. Bill benefits. The benchmark sets G.I. Bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This common sense provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at recruitment. The current G.I. Bill now provides nine monthly $650 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $23,400. Under the new benchmark established by this legislation, the monthly stipend for this academic year would be $1025, producing a new total benefit of $36,900 for the four academic years. By using our benchmark, which is updated annually by the College Board, the G.I. Bill benefits will truly reflect the current cost of higher education. Mr. President, today's G.I. Bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational goals. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our nation's veterans, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, and reflect current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the basic benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. Bill. I urge all members of the Senate to join Senator Johnson and myself in support of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform bill of 2001. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which goes a long way towards reforming our campaign system. I have long supported campaign finance reform. When I ran for the Senate from Maine in 1996 I promised my constituents that I would be a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. That pledge led to my decision to cosponsor the campaign finance reform that was introduced in 1997 by Senators McCain and Feingold. Unfortunately, comprehensive campaign finance reform efforts have been thwarted in the past two Congresses. This time, though, we have reason for optimism due to new and renewed support. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 takes a number of important steps towards fixing a broken system. First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as ``soft money.'' ``Soft money'' has made the current law's restrictions and contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions essentially meaningless. Second, the bill requires disclosure by the sponsors of certain issue ads that corporations and labor unions run in the period leading up to an election. Third, the bill codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck to ensure that nonunion members are not obligated to subsidize the political activities of labor unions. And finally, the bill makes it clear that foreign nationals may not contribute any funds--hard or soft--to federal, state, or local elections. My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an equal political voice. Mainers have backed their commitment to an open political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, town meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate issues and make decisions are still prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. Maine's tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine citizens feel strongly about reforming our federal campaign laws, as do I. The problem with soft money was painfully evident during the 1997 hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by my good friend, Senator Thompson. During those investigations, we heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. We also heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz who testified that the $300,000 he spend to gain access to the White House was not enough and that, next time, he would spend $600,000. And we heard of individuals, such as Chinese cigarette magnate Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated nearly $600,000 in political contributions during the 1996 election cycle. Sioeng, we later discovered, was a self-described agent of the Chinese government. Soft money donations soared in the 2000 presidential election cycle, nearly doubling from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in 2000. At the same time, regulated, hard money donations increased a little more than 10-percent. Soft money, then, is the crest of the wave that has swamped our campaign finance system and shaken public confidence in our government. I applaud the bipartisan efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold and pledge my continued support to see this legislation become law this year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I rise in support of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act which we are considering as part of this omnibus package and which provides over $30 billion in much needed financial relief to our nation's beleaguered hospitals, home health agencies, hospices and other Medicare providers over the next five years. In 1997, Congress and the White House faced a large and seemingly intractable federal budget deficit and projection that the Medicare Trust Fund would be bankrupt by 2002 unless Congress acted. The rapid growth in Medicare spending and pending insolvency of the trust fund understandably prompted the Congress and the Administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were intended to allow the spending growth and make Medicare more cost-effective and efficient. These measures, however, have inadvertently produced cuts in Medicare spending far beyond what Congress intended. In 1997, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the BBA would cut Medicare spending by $116 billion from 1998 to 2002. It now appears that the five-year impact of the BBA for hospitals, home health agencies and other Medicare providers is closer to $227 billion--almost twice the original estimates. These deeper than expected cuts in Medicare spending, coupled with onerous regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton Administration, are inhibiting the ability of hospitals, home health agencies, and other providers to deliver much-needed care, particularly to chronically-ill patients with complex care needs. While the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 did provide some relief, I believe that it is imperative that we do more. As we approach the end of the 106th Congress, we should have no higher priority. I am particularly pleased that the package we are considering today provides overdue relief for our nation's rural hospitals. Small, rural hospitals in Maine and elsehwere face unique challenges in the delivery of health care services. Shortages of physicians, nurses and other health professionals make it difficult to ensure that rural residents have access to all of the care that they need. Moreover, Medicare reimbursement policies tend to favor urban areas and often fail to take the special needs of rural providers into account. One relatively simple, but nevertheless important step we can take is to enable more small, rural hospitals in Maine and elsewhere to qualify for enhanced Medicare payments under the Medicare Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program. I am therefore pleased that this bill includes legislation that I introduced, the Small Rural Hospital Program Improvement Act, to update the antiquated and arbitrary classification requirements that prevent otherwise-qualified hospitals from receiving assistance under this program. Despite the fact that most of the small rural hospitals in Maine treat a disproportionate share of Medicare beneficiaries, none of them currently qualifies for this program. Not a single one. If updated in the way that this bill proposes, as many as nine Maine hospitals will be eligible for the program, which will qualify them to receive over $9 million in additional Medicare dollars each year. The bill also includes legislation introduced by the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, to correct a drafting error that precluded some of Maine's sole community hospitals from benefiting from the rebasing provisions in the Balancing Budget Refinement Act. This provision will bring an additional $2.8 million in Medicare reimbursements to Maine's hospitals each year. In addition, the legislation corrects the current inequity in the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital program that discriminates against rural hospitals that care for proportionately greater numbers of low-income patients. By treating rural hospitals the same as urban hospitals, as this bill would do, we will increase Medicare disproportionate share payments to at least 18 of Maine's hospitals by more than $8 million a year. And finally, the legislation will provide increased Medicare payments to all Maine hospitals by providing them with a full 3.4 percent inflation increase in FY 2001, up from the 2.3 percent they would receive under current law. Increasing Medicare payments rates is critically important to the hospitals in Maine. For the past several years, Maine has ranked 49th or 50th in the nation in terms of Medicare reimbursement-to-cost ratios. While hospitals in some states receive more than it costs them to provide care to older and disabled patients, Maine's hospitals are only reimbursed about 80 cents for every $1.00 they actually spend caring for Medicare beneficiaries. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall in recent years. The Maine Hospital Association anticipates a $174 million Medicare shortfall in 2002, which will force Maine's hospitals to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher hospital charges. This Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest insurance premiums in the nation. These provisions will not solve all of Maine's Medicare shortfall problems, but they will help to close the gap. I am also pleased that this bill extends and increases funding for two diabetes research programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, one focused on juvenile diabetes and the other focused on diabetes in Native Americans. These two programs are currently only funded through 2002. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act would extend funding for these two programs for one year and increase their funding levels from $30 million a year to $100 million a year. As the founder and Co-Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. We were all encouraged by the news earlier this year that twelve individuals from Canada appear to have been cured of their diabetes through an experimental treatment involving the transplantation of islet cells, and I believe that it is becoming increasingly clear that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future, if sufficient funding is made available. Last year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, held an oversight hearing to determine if the funding levels for diabetes research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are sufficient. At the hearing, the Committee heard testimony from the Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), an expert panel that studied the status of diabetes research at the NIH and across the country. The study revealed that diabetes research has been seriously underfunded. According to the DRWG, diabetes research represents only about 3 percent of the NIH research budget, which is clearly too small an investment for a disease that affects 16 million Americans and accounts for more than 10 percent of all health care dollars and nearly a quarter of all Medicare expenditures. Moreover, the DRWG report found that ``many scientific opportunities are not being pursued due to insufficient funding,'' and that the current ``funding level is far short of what is required to make progress on this complex and difficult problem.'' According to the DRWG, the funding levels for diabetes at the NIH are roughly $300 million short of what is necessary to ensure that the promising scientific opportunities in diabetes research are realized. The legislation we are considering today will help to close that gap and will make an enormous difference to the millions of Americans whose lives are affected every day by diabetes. By extending and increasing the funding for these two important research programs, we are providing the additional resources necessary to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunities for medical advances that should lead to better treatments, a means of prevention, and eventually a cure for this devastating disease. Finally, I am pleased that the bill we are considering today does provide a small measure of relief to our nation's struggling home health agencies, and in particular to those agencies that serve patients in rural areas. I am, however, disappointed that it does not do more. I will therefore continue to push not just for a delay--as this measure proposes--but for a full repeal of the automatic 15 percent reduction in home health payments that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2001. The Medicare home health benefit has already been cut far more deeply and abruptly than any other benefit in the history of the Medicare program. An additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments would ring the death knell for those low-cost agencies that are struggling to hang on and would further reduce our senior's access to critical home health services. Moreover, the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far surpassed. The CBO projects that the post-BBA reductions in home health will be about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is over four times the $16 billion that Congress expected to save when it passed the 1997 law. Further cuts clearly are not necessary and the 15 percent cut should be repealed. To simply delay the cut for an additional year is to leave this ``sword of Damocles'' hanging over the head of our nation's home health agencies. I have also been disappointed that the process under which we are considering this critical piece of legislation has not allowed for any amendments. The Home Health Payment Fairness Act, which I introduced with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to repeal the 15 percent cut currently has 55 Senate cosponsors. If I had been allowed to offer my bill as an amendment, as I had planned, it almost certainly would have passed. Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the importance of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program known as LIHEAP in helping low-income Maine families cope with the high cost of our long Maine winters. As Callie Parker from Little Deer Isle, Maine, so eloquently testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee earlier this year, heating your home during a Maine winter is a matter of life and death. When the cold reaches into the very marrow of one's bones, when a glass of water you left on a night stand freezes during the night should your furnace go out, you simply cannot get by without heat. Unfortunately, not everyone has enough money to buy the fuel necessary to heat their home. Far too many Maine families have had to choose whether to buy groceries or to pay their rent or mortgage or to keep warm. These are choices that no one should be forced to make, but unless we increase funding for energy assistance now, these choices will become increasingly common. Winter has not even officially begun, although you would not know that in the area of the country from which the Presiding Officer and I come. The high price of fuel and cold temperatures have already driven a record number of households in Maine to seek home heating assistance. Already the Community Action Program agencies in Maine have identified 28,000 households in need of LIHEAP funds to get through this winter. That compares to only 10,000 applicants at this time last year; in other words, it has more than doubled the amount of households seeking this kind of assistance. Another 19,000 families are waiting to be reviewed by the CAP agencies. The problem is, there is simply not sufficient money. As this chart shows, a Maine winter exacts a steep toll. Today, in Maine, a gallon of home heating oil, on average, costs $1.56. Last year at this time, home heating oil in Maine went for $1.03 a gallon--and we thought that was very high. That number is high because just two years ago the average price of home heating oil in Maine was just 78 cents a gallon. In short, home heating oil prices have increased by 100 percent in just two years. For the 75 percent of Mainers who rely on home heating oil to keep their homes warm, this is a steep price to pay indeed. Those heating their homes with natural gas also are facing difficulties. Consumer prices for natural gas have shot up over 50 percent compared to last year. As the second column on this chart shows, last year Maine's CAP agencies distributed an average of $488 to each household. That was the average LIHEAP benefit. Despite the rising costs of fuel, this year the Maine CAP agencies are able to distribute an average benefit of only $350. So you see the situation we have, Mr. President, and see why it is such a problem. We have the price of home heating oil far higher than last year, and more than double what it was two years ago. The high cost of fuel has put more strain on more families, and as a result many more households need assistance. That has caused the average LIHEAP benefit to be cut significantly. What does this mean? When the price of oil is 50 percent higher than last year, and the LIHEAP benefit is $138 less than last year, it means that people are not able to buy very many gallons of oil to heat their homes. Last year's LIHEAP benefit purchased 474 gallons of home heating oil. This year's benefit will purchase less than half that amount--a mere 224 gallons of oil. So we have the worst of all situations. We have the price of home heating oil at record highs; we have the benefit amount having to be cut to less than last year's; and the result is that low-income families are able to purchase far less home heating oil. And this year's winter is already shaping up to be colder than last year's. Mainers will need more oil to keep warm this winter, not less. When the furnace remains silent no matter how far you turn the thermostat dial, we need to be there to put oil in the tank. The bottom line is we need to provide more assistance to more families. The legislation before us today will provide an extra $300 million in LIHEAP assistance to be used this winter. And that is very helpful. It is almost a 30-percent increase above last year's funding level. I know how hard Senator Specter and Senator Stevens have fought for this significant increase. I thank them for their efforts on behalf of the thousands of Maine residents who will benefit greatly from these much needed funding increases. Yet it simply is not enough. With the price of fuel 50 percent higher this year than last, and with almost three times as many families in need of LIHEAP assistance this year compared to just 1 year ago, even a 30-percent increase will only go so far. It is certainly needed, and we are grateful for it, but we are still going to have a shortfall. I am also concerned and disappointed that by placing the year 2002 funding for LIHEAP on the chopping block, the Clinton administration lacked the foresight to realize the obvious: This is not our Nation's last winter. There will be another winter next year; I can guarantee it. We must lay the groundwork now to allow the planning to occur that will ensure that people stay warm next year, too. By eliminating the ``advance appropriation'' for LIHEAP for the next fiscal year, this appropriations bill has not laid any of the necessary groundwork for next year's winter. That will contribute to a supply crunch next fall, I fear. I call on the President and the congressional leadership to make LIHEAP a top priority, not only this year but next year as well. I am pleased to see and applaud the language that was included in the managers' statement pledging to fund LIHEAP in the next fiscal year at this year's level or at a greater level. I would have preferred to see a commitment for advance funding, but I know the conferees will keep the commitment they have made. Finally, I pledge my personal efforts to ensure that low-income families in Maine and throughout the Nation stay warm through our long winters. I yield the floor. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania leaves the floor, if that is his intention, I thank him for the exceptional job he has done in ensuring that we do have funding increases for critical programs such as those at the National Institutes of Health. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, describe it as the crown jewel of the Federal Government, and I totally agree with his comments. He has also been an advocate for more education funding, combined with more flexibility. I wish we had followed his advice earlier this year and sent the appropriations bill down to the White House, completing his work in a very timely fashion back in July, I believe it was. I commend the Senator for being an outstanding chairman. I am a great admirer of his and appreciate all of his hard work.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 1:30 p.m., with the time equally divided.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will today give final approval to legislation I introduced to curb the availability of false identification via the Internet. Let me thank my many colleagues in both the House and Senate for their hard work in moving this measure quickly through the legislative process. In particular, I appreciate the support and assistance of Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the work of Congressman Howard Coble, Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman John Conyers, and Congressman Bill McCollum. In addition to their efforts, I want to praise the strong support of Congressman Mark Green, who introduced a similar bill in the House. Enactment of this bill would not have been possible without the consistent support of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, as well as the assistance of Senators Kyl, Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin. The bill before the Senate today will make important improvements in our laws against the distribution and use of false identification. As I found during a lengthy investigation of the availability of false identification on the Internet, our current laws have done little to stop a growing Internet market in every imaginable type of false identification. Whether via e-mail or from a Web site with a name such as thefakeidshop.com, everything from birth certificates, to Social Security cards, to driver's licenses, are being sold or traded through the ease of cyberspace. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Investigations demonstrated that the availability of false identification documents from the Internet is a growing problem. Special Agent David Myers, Identification Fraud Coordinator of the State of Florida's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, testified that two years ago only one percent of false identification documents came from the Internet. Last year, he testified, a little less than five percent came from the Internet. Now he estimates that about 30 percent of the false identification documents he seizes comes from the Internet. He predicts that by next year his unit will find at least 60 to 70 percent of the false identification documents they seize will come from the Internet. S. 2924 will put a stop to this widespread distribution of false identification, which can be used to commit identity theft, to facilitate serious financial crimes, and to facilitate the underage purchase of alcohol and tobacco. The new law will make clear that it is a crime to transfer false identification documents by electronic means, and that those documents can be in the form of computer files, discs, or templates. I expect strong action by law enforcement agencies to enforce both the existing provisions of title 18, section 1028, and the expanded authority provided by this legislation. The intent of S. 2924 is simple and clear--to stop those who use the Internet to sell, distribute, or make available false identification. I am pleased that the new law will make it a crime to place false identification, regardless of its format, on an on-line location. Thus, the posting of such tools as scanned false identification documents or templates of state driver's licenses on Web sites will, without doubt, be illegal. Mr. President, I am pleased that the House retained the provisions that will establish a coordinating committee to concentrate resources of federal agencies on investigating and prosecuting the creation of false identification. This multi-agency effort should draw on the resources of several agencies to investigate and prosecute those who engage in the production and transfer of false identification of any type. I urge the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to involve all agencies that can assist in curbing the use of false identification. The House also approved another important portion of the Senate bill--the elimination of a section of law that unfortunately allowed criminals to manufacture, distribute, or sell counterfeit identification documents by using easily removable disclaimers as part of an attempt to shield the illegal conduct from prosecution through a bogus claim of ``novelty.'' No longer will it be acceptable to provide computer templates of government-issued identification containing an easily removable layer saying that it is not a government document. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is a treasure that thousands of Americans enjoy every year. From day hikers to adventures making the 2,167 mile trip from Georgia to Maine, all who travel the footpath enjoy a remarkable wilderness experience. The National Trails System Act of 1968 designated the Appalachian Trail as one of our nation's first scenic trails and authorized the Secretary of Interior to protect the trail through the acquisition of land along the trail or by other means. Over the years, Congress has supported this important effort through appropriations that have enabled the National Park Service to acquire more than 3000 parcels of land, protecting ninety-nine percent of the trail for future generations. Despite the success of the last thirty years, more work needs to be done to ensure that the trail is preserved in its entirety. The longest remaining unprotected segment of the Appalachian Trail crosses Saddleback Mountain, in the Rangeley Region of western Maine. The 3.1 miles that traverse the Saddleback Mountain range is one of the trail's highest stretches, offering hikers an alpine wilderness trek and extraordinary vistas. The mountain is also home to Saddleback Ski Area, which draws skiers to an area of Maine where many are employed in the tourism industry. For nearly twenty years, the National Park Service and the owners of the ski area have sought an agreement that balances the preservation of the trail experience as it exists today and development opportunities at the mountain that would draw additional skiers to the resort and the region. Some have been inclined to suggest that skiers and hikers cannot share Saddleback Mountain, but I have always maintained that with careful planning, preservation and economic development can coexist. Consequently, I have long urged both sides to work together to find a resolution that satisfies the interests of those who cherish the Appalachian Trail, as well as those who live and work in the Rangeley Region. Mr. President, the impasse between the National Park Service and the owners of Saddleback Mountain is drawing to a close. The agreement so many have labored to achieve has been all but finalized, and with the passage of the bill before us today, Congress will establish the framework by which this matter can be resolved. Included in the bill is a provision proposed by me and Senator Snowe directing the Secretary of Interior to acquire the land necessary to protect the Appalachian Trail as agreed to by both the Department and the owners of Saddleback Mountain. The language also directs the Secretary to convey the land to the State of Maine. I would like to express my appreciation to Appropriations Committee Chairman Stevens and Subcommittee Chairman Specter for working with Senator Snowe and I on this matter of importance to our State. I would also like to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Gorton for including the Saddleback acquisition in the list of projects approved for Title VIII funds in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. Their support, along with the dedication of many others who have been involved in the negotiations, will ensure that skiers and hikers can share in the enjoyment of the natural beauty and wonders of Saddleback Mountain for generation to come.

Ms. COLLINS. They certainly do. And one of the most exciting technologies involve wood composites. The fact is, most natural disasters directly affect wood construction, which is used for 99 percent of houses constructed nationally. The University of Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center (AEWC) has developed new technologies to reinforce wood construction materials with fiberglass material. These fiberglass-reinforced wood composites are two to three times stronger, more impact resistant and more ductile than their unreinforced counterparts. Homes and buildings constructed with these advanced materials should greatly enhance occupant protection from hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadic missiles, and other natural threats. In addition to their benefits in new construction, these technologies can be used to retrofit and strengthen existing wood buildings. The University of Maine and its industry partners require $4 million in fiscal year 2001 funds to complete material and wood panel testing on these technologies, and to start developing building code provisions to transition the new disaster resistant panels into residential and commercial construction. I commend my good friends, Chairman Gregg and the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their efforts thus far to allocate additional funds to the National Institute of Standards Scientific and Technical Research Services programs. I am particularly pleased with the additional funds that have been allocated to the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory, which is ideally suited to develop improved building technologies resistant to natural disaster. I would strongly encourage the NIST Building and Fire Research Lab to support development work on advanced wood composites, demonstrate the performance of reinforced-wood composites under simulated hurricane wind conditions, and introduce the new construction materials into national building codes and standards.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as you know, natural disasters exact a tremendous toll on our nation. In just two decades (1975-1994), 24,000 individuals nationwide lost their lives to natural disasters. An additional 100,000 were injured, and the resulting property damage reached a staggering $500 billion. Hurricanes are responsible for 80 percent of these $500 billion in damages. The continued rapid building of homes and commercial facilities along our coastlines increases the potential for even higher natural disaster costs in the future. Since Congress often responds to these disasters with emergency supplemental appropriations, it makes sense to also support the development of technologies and building techniques to mitigate damage resulting from hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5640, which is at the desk.