Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alabama has concluded his remarks, the Senator from Nebraska be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his comments, for his introduction of Governor Ridge at the hearing last Friday, and for his participation as a member of the committee. We are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of his expertise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from North Dakota delivers his remarks, the Senator from Alabama be recognized next for as long as he needs, with a limit of 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he would like to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.

Ms. COLLINS. Under the previous order, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the information of my colleagues, I expect my initial statement will not exceed 12 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Gov. Tom Ridge to be the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I assure my colleagues the committee thoroughly considered this nomination in an extensive hearing last Friday at which the nominee expertly and in a forthright manner answered all of the questions posed to him. Every member of the committee participated in the hearing at some point and each member was able to pose questions to Governor Ridge. Subsequently, the committee voted unanimously to report Governor Ridge's nomination to the full Senate. I am very pleased we are taking up this important assignment today. The United States has made substantial progress in improving homeland security since the terrorist attacks of September 11. The new Department of Homeland Security will provide the organizational framework to help our Nation better cope with the threat of a terrorist attack. September 11, 2001, underscored the concerns raised by many experts, including the members of the Hart-Rudman Commission who warned our Nation was not adequately prepared for 21st century threats but, rather, was still operating under a cold war threat environment. The nature of the threat has changed since the end of the cold war. Change has brought with it the need to reorganize the Government in a way that will enable us to better protect our Nation and its citizens. September 11 focused our attention on homeland security. Now we understand all too well why it is a problem if our first responders do not have compatible communication systems. Interoperability has gone from being a buzzword to a matter of life and death. Now we understand the vulnerability posed by 17 million shipping containers arriving in the United States from ports all over the world with few of them ever being searched. Now we understand our Nation's 20,000 miles of land and sea borders present countless opportunities for those who would do us harm. We also understand we can no longer rely on an ad hoc approach to homeland security. Currently, as many as 100 Federal agencies are responsible in some way for homeland security. But not one has homeland security as its primary mission. When that many entities are responsible, none is really accountable and turf battles and bureaucratic disputes are inevitable. The new Department of Homeland Security will work to address these problems by better securing our ports, our borders, and our critical infrastructure. It will synthesize and analyze intelligence information from multiple sources. It will coordinate security activities now undertaken separately by agencies such as the Customs Service, the INS, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The new Department will help remedy many of the current organizational weaknesses in order to better protect us against future attacks. Congress's passage of legislation creating this new Department was only the first step in what will be a long and difficult process. The homeland security effort will take all of us working together as a team--the administration, the new Secretary, and the Congress--to ensure the success of this massive reorganization. This effort will require the new Secretary to overcome unique challenges. The Department's leadership will have to address management and reorganization issues, as well as issues related to integrating the various agencies, each with differing work rules, information technology systems, and cultures. In addition to these challenges, the new Secretary must also ensure that the nonhomeland security functions moving to the Department are not neglected. For example, it is critically important to my home State of Maine and to coastal communities throughout our Nation that the Coast Guard's new homeland security responsibilities not divert its attention from its traditional role, including search and rescue missions. In a given year, the Coast Guard performs over 39,000 search and rescue missions. Just recently, the Coast Guard was involved in a rescue of two fishermen from a fishing island off the coast of Maine. On a typical day, the Coast Guard saves 10 lives, interdicts 14 illegal immigrants, inspects and repairs 135 buoys, and helps more than 2,500 commercial ships navigate into and out of U.S. ports. Because of the vital importance of these functions, Senator Stevens and I worked with many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to include strong language in the new Homeland Security Act to ensure that the Coast Guard will continue to make search and rescue and other traditional missions a priority, not an afterthought. Another challenge for the new Department will be to effectively support those men and women who are on the front lines, our Nation's 2 million first responders, including our police officers, our firefighters, and our emergency medical personnel. The Homeland Security Act establishes a new office for State and local government coordination, but it offers no assurance that the new Department will coordinate and communicate effectively with our Nation's first responders. Ensuring that our partners at the State and local level have sufficient attention, resources, and cooperation will require more work. This is another advantage that Governor Ridge brings to this important job. As a Governor, he understands better than most people how important the role played by State and local governments is to our national security. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security will be the most significant restructuring of the Federal Government in more than 50 years. It is the most important reorganization since Congress created the Department of Defense in 1947. It will involve the merger of 22 Federal agencies and some 170,000 employees. Managing this Department will pose extraordinary challenges. Fortunately, we have before us a man of extraordinary capacity in Gov. Tom Ridge. Governor Ridge's resume is impressive. In addition to his current service as assistant to the President for homeland security, Governor Ridge twice was elected as Governor of Pennsylvania, served six terms in the Congress, and worked as an assistant district attorney in Pennsylvania. His resume speaks to the management and leadership skills that he possesses which will be necessary to make this effort successful. Perhaps the clearest indication of Governor Ridge's character is something that you won't find on his resume. It is the story of his service in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war. Governor Ridge was one of the few, if not the only, graduate of Harvard who served in Vietnam as an enlisted man, and he did so with great distinction. Infantry Staff Sergeant Ridge was awarded a Bronze Star for valor. These are impressive credentials that speak to the character of a remarkable man. The new Department will not make us safer overnight, but its establishment must lead, and I believe will lead, to new capabilities that will make our Nation secure under the very capable leadership of Tom Ridge. Our goal must be a department that enables our country to better deter, detect, prepare for, and, if necessary, respond to a terrorist attack. To attain this goal will require not only extraordinary leadership from the new Secretary but also the cooperation of the agencies transferred to the new Department and the full support of the Congress. Ultimately, the success of the new Department rests not just on the broad shoulders of Governor Ridge but on all of us. Today I am hopeful the Senate will take an important step forward in making our homeland safer and more secure by promptly confirming Governor Ridge. We are asked to confirm Governor Ridge for a Cabinet post that may well be the most challenging position created by Congress during the last 50 years. I can't think of a better person to have at the helm of this new Department when it opens its doors this Friday than Governor Ridge. For this reason it is important we act promptly so the new Department opens on Friday with a new Secretary firmly in control. I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Governor Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. In my judgment, the President could not have made a better choice for this critically important position.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now turning to consideration of the nomination of Thomas Ridge; is that correct?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, Senator Jack Reed and I have offered an amendment that provides for the immediate release of $300 million in funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also known as LIHEAP. I thank the chair and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Specter and Harkin, for their efforts in support of this critical program. Despite the extremely difficult fiscal constraints facing our Nation, Senators Specter and Harkin have managed to provide $1.7 billion in regular-year LIHEAP funds in the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This is $300 million more than the administration's request. Unfortunately, while the bill before us provides more regular LIHEAP funds than the administration requested, the total funding, which includes both regular funding and emergency funding, is considerably less than was provided in fiscal year 2002. In fact, total LIHEAP funding in this bill falls $300 million below the total funding provided in fiscal year 2002. It is also $300 million below the total funds provided in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 18, 2002, by a vote of 29 to 0. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Reed of Rhode Island and I have offered would provide for the immediate release of an additional $300 million for low-income heating assistance by designating emergency funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 as regular-year funds for fiscal year 2003. For that reason, our amendment is fiscally responsible. Because these funds were already made available, our amendment does not increase total spending in the omnibus appropriations bill. These are funds that were already approved. The effect of our amendment is for this $300 million to be released immediately. Some might argue that these funds should not be released unless the President declares an emergency. Anyone who thinks that we don't currently have an emergency in home heating assistance should visit with a low-income family in Houlton, ME. Houlton recently experienced the coldest temperature of any place in the lower 48 States. A few days ago, temperatures in Houlton were 19 degrees below zero. Tonight, the forecast, with windchill, is for the temperature range to be from 20 to 40 below in some parts of my home State. When the temperature is that cold, and you do not have money in your budget to heat your home, that is an emergency. Adding to the problem of exceptionally cold winter weather, energy prices have escalated dramatically. The cessation of oil exports from Venezuela, as well as the prospect of a war in the Middle East, have pushed the price of crude oil up by nearly $6 per barrel in the last month. Home heating oil inventories are near 5-year lows, and prices are 20 percent higher than last winter. The Energy Information Administration predicts that home heating oil prices could rise 45 percent by the time winter is over. The price of natural gas, kerosene, and other fuels are facing similar pressures. In addition to a cold winter and high energy prices, we are also facing difficult economic times. Unemployment has reached an 8-year high. In Maine, as in many States, low-income and unemployed workers are struggling. Just last week, Great Northern Paper, the largest employer in northern Maine, filed for bankruptcy and laid off its workforce of more than 1,000 employees. In short, we are facing a ``perfect storm'' of high energy prices, exceedingly cold weather, and a difficult economy. With little prospect for a quick resolution of the crises in Iraq and Venezuela, continued forecasts for a cold winter, and the dubious prospects for a very quick economic rebound, all of us living in cold weather climates will face challenges in order to heat our homes this winter. This combination of factors strains everyone's pocketbook, but, of course, it places a particular burden on seniors living on limited incomes and on our low-income families. These families already carry a higher energy burden than most Americans. They can spend up to 20 or 25 percent of their entire income just paying their home energy bills. No one should have to choose between heating their homes or putting food on the table, having prescriptions in the medicine cabinet, or even staying in their homes altogether. Experience has shown, however, that pressures to pay energy bills and the inability to pay have resulted in increased medical expenses for our elderly, malnutrition for our children, and even homelessness. As an indicator of just how difficult this winter has been in my home State, let me tell you that 10,000 more people in Maine have applied for low-income heating assistance this year compared to last year. Unfortunately, even as the need has increased, the amount of assistance has declined. In Maine, the average household benefit has seen a steady decline over the last four winters. In the winter of 1999 to 2000, the average LIHEAP benefit for a Maine family was $491. The next year, it had fallen to $433. By last winter, the number had further declined to $358. Fortunately, with the approval of the Reed- Collins amendment, we can reverse this decline or at least ensure that more Maine families will be helped; otherwise, low-income Maine families struggling to heat their homes will only receive between $330 and $350 this winter, not nearly enough to help. I would like to say a word about the history of the LIHEAP funds that our amendment addresses. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 provided an extra $300 million in LIHEAP funds in order to help low income families deal with high energy prices. Report language specifically directed that at least $150 million of these funds were to be used to address unmet needs resulting from high energy prices. The other half of the money was directed to be used to meet the most critical needs arising from energy cost increases and increases in unemployment, among other things. I have been working for the better part of 2 years to secure the release of these funds. On August 13, 2001, I joined Senator Reed, Senator Kennedy, and a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to the President requesting the release of the very same $300 million in emergency funds from the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill. On September 10, 2001, I again joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to OMB director Mitch Daniels requesting the immediate release of these funds. On October 26, 2001, 17 Senators joined Senator Reed and me in a letter to the Senate Minority and Majority leader requesting legislative language to require the release of these funds. On October 30, 2001, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill expressing the sense of the Senate that these funds should be released immediately. That amendment was supported by Senators Specter and Harkin and passed the Senate as part of the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS bill. On February 12, 2002, I joined my colleague Senator Snowe in sending a letter to the President again requesting the release of these same funds. On September 23, 2002, Senator Reed and I were joined by Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and 35 of our colleagues in a letter to the President requesting the release of $200 million in emergency funds that were made available as part of the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill. These funds expired without ever being spent. Finally, on December 23, 2002, half of our colleagues joined Senator Reed and me in sending a letter to the administration requesting a total of $2 billion in fiscal year 2003 funding--which is the same amount made available by combining the $300 million in my amendment with the $1.7 billion already in the bill. The LIHEAP program is essential in helping many low-income families get through the winter months. This has been an unusually cold winter. This has been a year where home heating prices have soared. This has been a year where the economy has been difficult. The combination of those three factors calls out for us to provide this additional assistance. I am very pleased that our colleagues have joined together with an overwhelming vote. I hope very much this provision will be retained in the final conference report. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the LIHEAP amendment just adopted: Senators Grassley, Specter, Lieberman, Kohl, Baucus, and Lincoln.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when I left Maine earlier today, the forecast was for temperatures with a wind chill of 40 below zero tonight. We are facing a ``perfect storm'' of exceedingly cold winter weather, high energy prices, and a difficult economy. This amendment is a modest amendment with very little budget impact. But it is an amendment that will make a real difference in the lives of low-income families in Maine and States across the Nation. No one should have to choose between being warm in the winter, buying prescription drugs, or buying the food they need to remain healthy. This amendment will address the needs of thousands of low-income families across this Nation so that they will not be faced with those choices. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to millions more Americans. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine. Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially challenged. Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through increased fees and insurance premiums. Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern. Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn drives up health care premiums. Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail. First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers cope with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs. Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms. Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group. The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the nation. The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health are for individuals and families. One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, including over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance. Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need. The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs. Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance. And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help. The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our Nation's health care safety net. The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas. For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place. In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term care insurance. Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine. Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment. And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending. The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from New York and Arizona in introducing the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act, which will make prescription drugs more affordable by promoting completion in the pharmaceutical industry and increasing access to lower-priced generic drugs. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today is identical to the compromise legislation that overwhelmingly passed the Senate last July by a vote of 78 to 21. That compromise was based on an amendment I Offered in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with my colleague form North Carolina, Senator Edwards. Prescription drug spending in the United States has increased by 92 percent over the past 5 years to almost $120 million. These soaring costs are a particular burden for the millions of uninsured Americans, as well as those seniors on Medicare who lack prescription drug coverage. Many of these individuals are simply priced out of the market, or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the pills that keep them healthy. Skyrocketing prescription drug costs are also putting the squeeze on our Nation's employers who are struggling in the face of double-digit annual premium increases to provide health care coverage for their workers. And they are exacerbating the Medicaid funding crisis that all of us are hearing about from our Governors back home as they struggle to bridge growing shortfalls in their State budgets. The legislation that we are introducing today will make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that are bill will cut our Nation's drug costs by $60 billion over the next 10 years. That is why the legislation is supported by coalitions representing the Governors, insurers, businesses, organized labor, senior groups, and individual consumers who are footing the bill for these expensive drugs and whose costs for popular drugs like Cardizem CD, Cipro, Prilosec, and Zantac could be cut in half if generic alternatives were available. The 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act made significant changes in our patent laws that were intended to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the investments necessary to develop new drug products, while simultaneously enabling their competitors to bring lower-cost, generic alternatives to the market. To that end, the legislation has succeeded to a large degree. Prior to Hatch-Waxman, it took 3 to 5 years for generics to enter the market after a brand-name patent had expired. Today, lower-cost generics often enter the market immediately upon the expiration of the patent. As a consequence, consumers are saving anywhere from $8 to 10 billion a year by purchasing generic drugs. Moreover, there are even greater potential savings on the horizon. Within the next 4 years, the patents on brand name drugs with combined sales of $20 billion are set to expire. If Hatch-Waxman were to work as it was intended, consumers could expect to save between 50 and 60 percent on these drugs as lower cost generic alternatives become available as these patents expire. Despite its past success, however,it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Hatch-Waxman Act has been subject to abuse. While many pharmaceutical companies have acted in good faith, there is mounting evidence that some brand name generic drug manufacturers have attempted to ``game'' the system by exploiting legal loopholes in the current law. Too many pharmaceutical companies have maximized their profits at the expense of consumers by filing frivolous patents that have delayed access to lower priced generic drugs. Currently, brand-name companies can delay a generic drug from going to market for years. A ``new'' patent for an existing drug can be awarded for merely changing the color of a pill or its packaging. For example, Bristol Myers-Squibb delayed generic competition on Platinol, a cancer treatment, by filing a patent on the brown bottle that it came in. Another example cited by the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Timothy Muris, in testimony before the Senate Commerce Commission, involved the producer of the heart medication Cardizem CD, which brought a lawsuit for patent and trademark infringement against the generic manufacturer in early 1996. Instead of asking the generic company to pay damages, however, the brand name manufacturer offered a settlement to pay the generic company more than $80 million in return for keeping the generic drug off the market. Meanwhile, users of Cardizem--which treats high blood pressure, chest pains and heart disease--were paying about $73 a month when the generic would have cost about $32 a month. Last July, the Federal Trade Commission released a long-awaited report that found that brand-name drug manufacturers have misused legal loopholes to delay the entry of lower-cost generics into the market. The FTC found that these tactics have led to delays of between four and 40 months-- over and above the first 30-month stay provided under Hatch-Waxman--for generic competitors of at least eight drugs since 1992. Moreover, six of the eight delays have occurred since 1998. The FTC report points to two specific provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act--the automatic 30-month stay and the 180-day market exclusivity for the first generic to file a patent challenge--as being susceptible to strategies that could delay the entry of lower-cost generics into the market. According to the report, these loopholes ``continue to have the potential for abuse,'' and, if left unchanged, ``may have more significance in the future.'' These are the very loopholes that the legislation we are introducing today would close. The original Hatch-Waxman Act was a carefully constructed compromise that balanced an expedited FDA approval process to speed the entry of lower-cost generic drugs into the market with additional patent protections to ensure continuing innovation. The bipartisan bill that we are introducing today restores that balance by closing the loopholes that have reduced the original law's effectiveness in bringing lower- cost generic drugs to market more quickly, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at the conclusion of this year, we will bid farewell to a Senator who is larger than life, both literally and figuratively. Fred Thompson, may chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and my food friend, will be leaving the Senate after 8 years of distinguished service. While there is no question that the people of Tennessee would have returned him to the Senate for another term had he chosen to seek it, Fred decided that there is life after the Senate--and if the past is prologue, we can be sure that it will be an interesting life. Fred came to this body after a varied and distinguished career. He had been a prominent public servant--most notably as an assistant U.S. attorney and as the Republican counsel to the Watergate committee--as well as a skilled lawyer and a gifted actor. From his days with Senators Howard Baker and Sam Ervin in the Watergate hearings, to his role in exposing the sale of pardons in the State of Tennessee, to his acting in 18 films, Fred brought a keen intellect, a great sense of humor, and an exceptional capacity for hard work to every task. And those are the very characteristics that have marked his Senate service. Fred has been a leader in the Senate on a wide variety of critical issues, including intelligence reform and oversight, reducing the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and reducing the tax burden on American families. He was among the first to join Senators McCain and Feingold in the quest for campaign finance reform and fairly and effectively chaired extensive hearings to expose the abuses in the financing of the 1996 Presidential campaign. As chairman and later ranking Republican on the Governmental Affairs Committee, his efforts have led to management and regulatory reforms as well as the passage of the legislation to create the new Department of Homeland Security. In the 6 years that I have worked closely with Fred, I have never known him to be unprepared. I have never known him to be undisciplined. And I have never known him to be anything less than eloquent--although, as a Yankee, I may not always appreciate the subtlety of his colloquial expressions. Two examples that I recall with special fondness are: ``Don't load up the wagon unless you're willing to pay the freight,''-- which is, I believe, a reference to spending proclivities--and then, my personal favorite: ``It's like teaching a pig to dance. It wastes your time, and it irritates the pig. Of course, Fred is much more than just quotable. Fred is a truly courageous leader. He actually relishes being in the minority, even a tiny minority, when one of his basic principles, such as States rights and the 10th amendment, is at issue. He always votes his convictions-- even when the current polls suggest that public sentiment is on the other side. His good judgment and his careful consideration of every issue are a model for all of us. Fred's fearless leadership is one of many reasons why his constituents, even those who may disagree with him, hold him in such high regard. They know that Fred Thompson will speak the truth and do with it right, that he will make the hard choices, and that the well being of his constituents and our country guides his every decision. No one can be certain what the future will hold for Fred. We know that he has already drawn on two of his previous careers--the law and acting--by signing on to play the avuncular district attorney on the popular television show, ``Law and Order.'' It also seems very likely that he will have future responsibilities in Government, since I anticipate that this President will seek to use his extraordinary talents. But no matter what Fred Thompson's post-Senate career may entail, one conclusion can be stated with confidence. He has graced this institution and served his Nation well. I feel so fortunate to have served with him during these past 6 years, and I shall miss him. Godspeed, my friend. TIM hutchinson Mr. President, I rise this morning to pay tribute to my colleague and good friend from Arkansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson. I have particularly enjoyed working with Tim on the Senate HELP Committee. We have literally worked ``shoulder to shoulder'' both in committee and on the Senate floor on many issues of tremendous importance to the health and well-being of all Americans--the Patients' Bill of Rights, legislation to increase access to more affordable prescription drugs, home health care, increased funding for diabetes research, and legislation to increase access to health care in the rural and underserved areas of our country. Tim demonstrated his ability to reach across the aisle and work on a bipartisan basis when he joined with Senator Mikulski in developing legislation to address our Nation's growing shortage of registered nurses. I was pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which has been signed into law, and which will address this problem by providing incentives for individuals to enter the nursing profession, providing continuing education and opportunities for advancement within the profession, and increasing the number of nurse faculty to teach at our nursing schools. Senator Hutchinson has also been a leader and an advocate for our men and women in uniform, and I have been honored to serve with him on the Senate Armed Forces Committee. As the ranking member on the personnel subcommittee, he has seen to the needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines time and time again. He has fought to ensure that the men and women serving our country receive adequate pay and compensation, and this year he went to the mat to support our military retirees on concurrent receipt/special compensation. In January 2000, I traveled with Senator Hutchinson to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan where we got an update on the region and had an opportunity to meet with many troops there. In particular, Senator Hutchinson spent a lot of time speaking with our troops who were serving proudly on the front line of the DMZ. In Korea, it was the dead of winter, and the meeting rooms in South Korea actually straddled the DMZ line. On that trip we also visited the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk in Japan, where I found that Senator Hutchinson had a special place in his heart for our naval forces. We also made history when we met with the first democratic president of Taiwan--President Lee. Senator Hutchinson has always taken the time to listen to our troops and military leaders, as he was always looking for ways that he could make a positive difference for these young men and women proudly serving our country. Senator Hutchinson will be greatly missed, but his legacy and accomplishments will remain in our history forever. Fred Thompson

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I oppose this adjournment resolution. While I am eager to return home to Maine, there is critical unfinished business here in Washington. We should not adjourn prior to passing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors as well as legislation to remedy inadequate Medicare reimbursements that are jeopardizing the viability of our home health agencies, rural hospitals, and nursing homes. Cuts in Medicare are also discouraging physicians from accepting Medicare patients. These health care problems should be solved now, not delayed until next year. Medicare reimbursements must be adequate to cover the costs borne by health care providers in caring for our seniors and disabled citizens. And our elderly have already waited too long for prescription drug coverage. Finally, we should have given final approval to legislation authored by Senators Nelson, Smith, Rockefeller, and myself to increate Medicaid rates to provide fiscal relief to the States and to prevent cuts in health care for low-income families.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the Senior Senator from Alaska for the leadership he has shown in helping to preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard after it becomes part of the new Department of Homeland Security. Maine and Alaska share a common interest in preserving the Coast Guard's traditional functions, including its search and rescue mission, which are so critical to our fishing communities. The Senior Senator from Alaska and I teamed up in the Governmental Affairs Committee to ensure that, when we transfer the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, we do not leave its traditional missions behind. Our language ensured that the authorities, functions, assets, and personal of the Department would be maintained intact and without reduction after its transfer to the new Department except as specified in subsequent Acts. I am pleased that the fundamental elements and purposes of our Coast Guard amendment are included in the final compromise homeland security bill. Section 888 of the final compromise measure is intended to preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources, and ice operations. The Coast Guard will also be a separate and distinct entity in the new Department, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard will report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, thus preventing a demotion from the Commandant's current status in the Department of Transportation. There is, however, a question that I would like to address to my friend from Alaska. It is my understanding that Section 888 of the final compromise bill is intended to prohibit changes in the Coast Guard's personnel, assets, or authorities that would adversely impact the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security functions. Is that also the Senator's understanding of this provision?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the Senior Senator from Alaska for the leadership he has shown in helping to preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard after it becomes part of the new Department of Homeland Security. Maine and Alaska share a common interest in preserving the Coast Guard's traditional functions, including its search and rescue mission, which are so critical to our fishing communities. The Senior Senator from Alaska and I teamed up in the Governmental Affairs Committee to ensure that, when we transfer the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, we do not leave its traditional missions behind. Our language ensured that the authorities, functions, assets, and personal of the Department would be maintained intact and without reduction after its transfer to the new Department except as specified in subsequent Acts. I am pleased that the fundamental elements and purposes of our Coast Guard amendment are included in the final compromise homeland security bill. Section 888 of the final compromise measure is intended to preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources, and ice operations. The Coast Guard will also be a separate and distinct entity in the new Department, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard will report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, thus preventing a demotion from the Commandant's current status in the Department of Transportation. There is, however, a question that I would like to address to my friend from Alaska. It is my understanding that Section 888 of the final compromise bill is intended to prohibit changes in the Coast Guard's personnel, assets, or authorities that would adversely impact the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security functions. Is that also the Senator's understanding of this provision?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the Senior Senator from Connecticut and the Senior Senator from Kentucky for their assistance and congratulate them on the impending passage of this bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Maine has same day registration so a voter can register at the polls or at a public office nearby and vote on the same day. If someone challenges the voter's right on that day, the ballot is marked as a challenged ballot. If a voter goes to the polls to vote and does not have identification or does not appear on the voting rolls, the presiding election official will challenge the voter, and his or her ballot will be treated as a challenged vote. The presiding election official keeps a list of voters challenged and the reason why they were challenged. After the time for voting expires, the presiding election official seals the list. The challenged votes are counted on election day. In the even of a recount, and if the challenged ballots could make a difference in the outcome of the election, the ballots and list are examined by the appropriate authority. The distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules have done excellent work crafting the important bill before us. I would ask them whether, then, Maine's system complies with this Election Reform Act?

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing a bill to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Associations Week in honor of this army of health care heroes who are dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession. The Visiting Nurse Associations, VNAs, of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled and the elderly benefit most from health care when it is offered in their own homes. Home care is an increasingly important part of our health care system today. The kinds of highly skilled, and often technically complex, services that the VNAs provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable patients to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be, in the comfort and security of their own homes. Visiting Nurse Associations are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. VNAs literally created the profession and practice of home health care more than one hundred years ago, at a time when there were no hospitals in many communities and patients were cared for at home by families who did the best they could. VNAs made a critical difference to these families, bringing professional skills into the home to care for the patient and support the family. They made a critical difference in the late 19th century, and are making a critical difference now as we embark upon the 21st. VNAs were pioneers in the public health movement, and, in the late 1800s, VNA responsiveness meant milk banks, combating infectious diseases, and providing care for the poor during massive influenza epidemics. Today, that same responsiveness means caring for the dependent elderly, the chronically disabled, the terminally ill, and providing high-tech services previously provided in hospitals, such as ventilator care, blood transfusions, pain management and home chemotherapy. Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in the hospital. More and more procedures are being done on an outpatient basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover, the number of Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in some way continues to grow each year. Once again, VNAs are making a critical difference, providing comprehensive home health services and caring support to patients and their families across the country. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing health care into the homes of over four million Americans every year. VNAs are truly the heart of home care in this country today, and it is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide to their patients and their families. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Feingold and me in cosponsoring this resolution establishing an annual National Visiting Nurse Associations' Week.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fisheries Management Fairness Act in order to provide New England fishermen with a guarantee that the fisheries management decisions that affect their lives will not be made without the benefit of sound, reliable data. Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by excessive regulations and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. As a result of recent litigation, fishermen have seen their days at sea slashed, struggle to implement new gear changes, and are squeezed into ever smaller fishing areas. Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in danger of disappearing, likely to be replaced by tourism and development. Once the culture of fishing is lost, it will be all but impossible ti replace. On September 11, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that the trawler gear used on the NOAA research vessel Albatross IV had been calibrated incorrectly, casting suspicion over the data it had collected since February of 2000. The miscalibrated gear had been used to conduct the last eight stock abundance surveys, which measure long-term increases and decreases in stock populations. Data gathered by these surveys are the basis for regulations in fisheries management plans governing the rebuilding of overfished stocks. These regulations take the form of ``amendments'' to the New England's overall groundfish management plan, covering a complex of thirteen groundfish species. Amendment 13, the next set of regulations, is supposed to be ready for implementation by August 22, 2003. Although the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted an observation cruise and a performance review workshop with industry to examine the extent of the damage in the survey, the agency has concluded that additional research is required to determine the full extent of the damage caused by the flawed gear. The Service has pledged to conduct a ``short-term experiment'' to determine the extent of the damage to the survey. This short-term experiment will rely on video and sensor equipment to gather data, and a subsequent workshop to examine the data and produce a report that can be used in updating groundfish assessments. It is unlikely that this experiment will provide the quality of data necessary to develop Amendment 13 by its court-ordered deadline. The type of data necessary to develop fisheries management plans can be produced only after years of research that demonstrate long-term stock trends. Theoretical modeling of past data of questionable quality is simply not good enough to develop the regulations of a plan that will affect the survival of our fishermen. When fishermen's livelihoods depend on the quality of survey data, we owe it to them to get the data collection right. There is no room for second-rate science and faulty data. My bill addresses these problems by preventing Amendment 13 from being implemented for two years, enough time to allow the Northeast Fishery Science Center and the National Marine Fishery Center to determine the reliability of the data collected by the Albatross IV and to collect accurate data on which to base future amendments. I will not stand idly by and let New England's fishing community die without a fight. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate to work to pass this legislation. If we cannot pass it as a rider to another bill during this session, then I plan to reintroduce it and fight for its passage when we reconvene next year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fisheries Management Fairness Act in order to provide New England fishermen with a guarantee that the fisheries management decisions that affect their lives will not be made without the benefit of sound, reliable data. Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by excessive regulations and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. As a result of recent litigation, fishermen have seen their days at sea slashed, struggle to implement new gear changes, and are squeezed into ever smaller fishing areas. Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in danger of disappearing, likely to be replaced by tourism and development. Once the culture of fishing is lost, it will be all but impossible ti replace. On September 11, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that the trawler gear used on the NOAA research vessel Albatross IV had been calibrated incorrectly, casting suspicion over the data it had collected since February of 2000. The miscalibrated gear had been used to conduct the last eight stock abundance surveys, which measure long-term increases and decreases in stock populations. Data gathered by these surveys are the basis for regulations in fisheries management plans governing the rebuilding of overfished stocks. These regulations take the form of ``amendments'' to the New England's overall groundfish management plan, covering a complex of thirteen groundfish species. Amendment 13, the next set of regulations, is supposed to be ready for implementation by August 22, 2003. Although the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted an observation cruise and a performance review workshop with industry to examine the extent of the damage in the survey, the agency has concluded that additional research is required to determine the full extent of the damage caused by the flawed gear. The Service has pledged to conduct a ``short-term experiment'' to determine the extent of the damage to the survey. This short-term experiment will rely on video and sensor equipment to gather data, and a subsequent workshop to examine the data and produce a report that can be used in updating groundfish assessments. It is unlikely that this experiment will provide the quality of data necessary to develop Amendment 13 by its court-ordered deadline. The type of data necessary to develop fisheries management plans can be produced only after years of research that demonstrate long-term stock trends. Theoretical modeling of past data of questionable quality is simply not good enough to develop the regulations of a plan that will affect the survival of our fishermen. When fishermen's livelihoods depend on the quality of survey data, we owe it to them to get the data collection right. There is no room for second-rate science and faulty data. My bill addresses these problems by preventing Amendment 13 from being implemented for two years, enough time to allow the Northeast Fishery Science Center and the National Marine Fishery Center to determine the reliability of the data collected by the Albatross IV and to collect accurate data on which to base future amendments. I will not stand idly by and let New England's fishing community die without a fight. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate to work to pass this legislation. If we cannot pass it as a rider to another bill during this session, then I plan to reintroduce it and fight for its passage when we reconvene next year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I give my speech, I commend my friend, the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for a very thoughtful presentation this evening. He and I have had many discussions about how difficult this decision has been for both of us. We have reached many of the same conclusions. But I just want to salute him for a very thoughtful and thorough analysis of the resolution and the challenges before us. The decision to authorize the use of military force is the most significant vote that a Member of the Senate can ever cast. The Constitution clearly vests this responsibility in Congress, a duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every Member. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am keenly aware of the sacrifices and dangers faced by our young men and women in the military. They are ready to answer the call to combat, ready to fight the war against terrorism, ready to defend our freedoms around the globe. In the wake of the attacks on our country on September 11, the Senate vote to authorize the war against terrorism was rapid, unanimous, and clear-cut. By contrast, whether to authorize the use of military force against Iraq is a far more difficult and complex question. It requires a thorough analysis of the nature and urgency of the threat and an evaluation of all possible responses. As a member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, and the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security and Proliferation, I have received many briefings on the dangers posed by lawless regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea during the past 5 years. And during the past 2 months, I have attended several highly classified, in-depth briefings on Iraq from the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the White House. I have questioned the experts--I have questioned them closely--including former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, as well as Secretary Rumsfeld, at public hearings before the Armed Services Committee. I have read studies and assessments, both classified and public, conducted by the administration, the British Joint Intelligence Committee, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and many others. I talked at length with Secretary Colin Powell about the appropriate strategy to respond to Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. Let me first discuss my conclusions about the nature and the extent of the threat posed by the Iraqi regime and its continued defiance of the United Nations resolutions. In 1991, Iraq accepted a cease-fire agreement in the form of United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, to end the gulf war. The Iraqi regime was required to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless under international supervision of all of its chemical and biological agents. In addition, the resolution prohibited Iraq from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons and required the destruction of all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. From a series of Iraqi declarations to the U.N. subsequent to this resolution, we know that Iraq, by its own admission, had by 1991 produced thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, sarin, and VX, as well as very large quantities of biological agents, including anthrax and ricin. Most experts believe Iraq's declarations grossly understated the true sense of its chemical and biological programs. But even the admitted amounts were sufficient to kill hundreds of thousands of people. For a time in the 1990s, the U.N. inspectors succeeded in destroying quantities of these weapons, as well as the associated production facilities, ballistic missiles, and much of the infrastructure for Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Subsequently, however, the Iraqi regime's harassment, obstruction, and deception made it impossible for the inspectors to continue their work, and they were withdrawn. At the time they left in 1998, the inspectors were unable to account for very large discrepancies between the weapons that were declared and the amounts that were destroyed. For example, at least 1.5 tons of the deadly nerve agent VX were unaccounted for. Just under 10 milligrams of VX can cause a quick and painful death. The CIA has concluded all key aspects of Iraq's offensive biological and chemical weapons program, including research and development, production and weaponization, are active and, in some cases, larger and more advanced than before the gulf war. In addition to the weapons unaccounted for in the post-gulf war inspections, there is significant evidence that since 1998, Saddam has expanded his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons; rebuilt and expanded manufacturing sites, including mobile biological production facilities; developed more effective delivery systems, such as unmanned drones; and sought to procure materials for a nuclear bomb. The reports demonstrating Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions are numerous, compelling, and indisputable. They are based on the findings of U.N. weapons inspectors, credible reports from Iraqi defectors, sophisticated surveillance equipment, and other strong evidence. Even more troubling is the evidence compiled by the American and British intelligence agencies that Iraq has converted its L-29 jet trainers to allow them to be used as unmanned aerial vehicles, capable of delivering chemical and biological agents over a large area. While the evidence of Iraq's pursuit of biological and chemical weapons is overwhelming, it is more difficult to determine the state of Iraq's development of nuclear weapons. Numerous reports suggest, however, a renewed determination by Saddam Hussein to obtain the materials for a nuclear bomb. A September report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies paints a chilling picture of Saddam's quest for nuclear weapons. Had the gulf war not intervened, Iraq ``could have accumulated a nuclear stockpile of a dozen or so weapons by the end of the decade,'' according to the report. It further concludes that the scientific and technical expertise of Iraq's nuclear program remains intact, and the British Government has revealed that Iraqi nuclear personnel were ordered to resume work on nuclear projects in 1998. According to British intelligence, Iraq has also attempted to obtain uranium from Africa. This is extraordinarily troubling. Since Iraq has no active civil nuclear power program or nuclear powerplants, it simply has no peaceful reason to attempt to secure uranium. In addition, the Iraqi Government has attempted to procure tens of thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges designed to enrich uranium to produce the fissile material necessary for a nuclear bomb. How soon could Iraq acquire nuclear weapons? The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that Iraq is probably years away from producing nuclear weapons if it has to rely on indigenously produced material. It points out if Iraq were to acquire nuclear material from a foreign source, the timeframe could be reduced to a matter of months. This is the scenario the institute calls the nuclear wild card. An independent assessment conducted by Professor Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, confirms the growing threat posed by Iraq. The professor states that Saddam Hussein seeks weapons to offset American superiority and high-tech weaponry. In other words, while the United States has developed conventional weapons to be as surgical as possible and to limit unintended casualties, Iraq develops its weapons to be as blunt and as destructive as possible, to instill fear in its enemies and its neighbors. In short, Saddam Hussein has continued to develop a stockpile of the deadliest chemical and biological agents known to mankind and has continued to seek nuclear weapons in defiance of his international obligations. The more difficult question is whether the growing and serious threat posed by Saddam Hussein is sufficiently imminent to warrant the authorization of a military strike by the United States and its allies should diplomatic means of disarming Iraq fail. The President correctly noted in his recent speech that the passage of this authorization does not mean that war is imminent and unavoidable. In fact, the resolution before us represents a considerable improvement over the administration's earlier draft which I would have opposed because of its insufficient emphasis on pursuing diplomatic means first and working through the United Nations Security Council. The bipartisan resolution, by contrast, specifically requires a Presidential determination that further reliance on diplomatic or other peaceful means alone would not adequately protect our national security or lead to the enforcement of the relevant U.N. resolutions. But nevertheless, the difficult question remains of whether the threat is so urgent that a military strike may be required and should be authorized by this resolution. The evidence of Saddam's massive buildup of the most dangerous weapons is compelling, but as Mr. Berger pointed out in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the threat is not defined by capability alone. We have to probe Saddam Hussein's intentions, as well as his capability, to determine the threat. In that regard, if, as Shakespeare tells us, the past is prolog, the history of Saddam's regime gives us great cause for concern. While none of us can predict for certain whether or when Saddam would strike, there are simply far too many warning signs in his past behavior and in his present undertakings. His coldblooded willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people, as well as his enemies; his aggressive invasion of two nations; his blatant defiance of international sanctions; his continued efforts to procure the materials to build a nuclear bomb; and his determined progress to develop a more effective means of delivering chemical and biological weapons all strongly suggest an intention and an ability to use these weapons. As the assessment of the British Government states, the evidence shows that Saddam Hussein does not regard these weapons of mass destruction as only weapons of last resort. He is ready to use them and determined to retain them. In fact, British intelligence reports that some of the weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them. The history of Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq is a history of war and aggression against his enemies, his neighbors, and his own people. Throughout the decade of the 1980s, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill thousands of civilians, and Iraq has the means, through billions of dollars in oil revenues, to continue to develop, procure, or steal the materials necessary for its weapons. The risks are simply too catastrophic for the world to allow Iraq to continue on its present course, but is a military response the only answer? From the beginning of this debate, I have emphasized my belief that military force must be the last resort, not the first alternative. Today I still hold out the hope that military action will not prove necessary to disarm this dangerous regime. A strong United Nations resolution to compel Iraq to declare its weapons and to accept unfettered, rigorous inspections may well be successful in convincing Saddam that he must disarm. I believe our policy should be focused on disarming Iraq rather than on regime change, much as I would like Saddam Hussein to be deposed. In making what has been a very difficult decision, I was persuaded ultimately to support this resolution by an extensive discussion with Secretary Powell. He has convinced me the process for effective action by the United Nations to disarm Iraq depends on the credible threat of the use of force, and that is the reason ultimately that I will decide to cast my vote in favor of this resolution. Secretary Powell told me his ability to secure a strong resolution from the U.N. Security Council will be strengthened enormously by a strong, bipartisan congressional vote for this authorization. Similarly, as Secretary Schlesinger testified, the greater degree to which the President and the Congress are united in purpose with respect to Iraq, the greater is the likelihood the United Nations will take a firm and appropriate stand toward Iraq. Only if Saddam understands we are prepared to use military force will a peaceful means of disarming him have any chance to succeed. All Americans share the goal of eliminating this threat without war, but we differ on how to achieve that goal. In my view, there are times in dealing with a tyrant when the best, indeed perhaps the only, chance to avoid war is to express, in unmistakable terms, our willingness to wage it. And this is one of those times. Some understandably ask: Why now? Has not our current policy contained Saddam? It has, only if allowing him to acquire the capability to kill and destroy on a scale that far exceeds his past efforts means that we have contained him. No, the truth is we have not really contained Saddam. We have largely ignored him, a strategy that simply delays the inevitable while the stakes grow ever higher. The reason we must deal with this threat now is both clear, convincing, and chilling. Given Saddam's insatiable desire to possess chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, this danger will not disappear on its own, and the price we may have to pay today to eliminate this threat will prove modest compared to the price we will have to pay tomorrow. As difficult as the decision to authorize military action is, one need only consider how much more difficult it will be when Saddam has a nuclear bomb. Finally, let me emphasize my strong belief that the United States should act in concert with our allies, as we pursue a new Security Council resolution, or in the event we have to resort to military force. While the United States must always retain the right to defend itself, our prospects for dealing effectively with the Iraqi threat, our standing in the community of nations, and our ability to continue to wage an effective global effort against terrorism depend on our forging a multilateral coalition. The President deserves great credit for putting together a coalition of some 90 nations to combat terrorism. That same kind of effort must be devoted to building a coalition to confront and disarm the Iraqi regime.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, each year, members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption nominate an individual or couple to receive the ``Angels in Adoption'' award. This year, it was my pleasure to nominate Dawn C. Degenhardt of Houlton, ME to receive the 2002 ``Angels in Adoption'' award for her efforts and dedication to this cause. Dawn's wonderful story is truly inspirational. Born in Portland, ME, Dawn was a child advocate in Cleveland, OH, where she founded the State chapter of the Council on Adoptable Children. Dawn and another parent also founded Spaulding of Beechbrook in Ohio, which helps to place special needs children and is still in existence today. When Dawn and her husband decided to start their own family, they began by adopting two infants. By the time their second child was a year old, Dawn and Ed pursued an older child adoption. Over the next two years, they worked to encourage more people to adopt older children. They adopted four more children, one from a Native American adoption program in South Dakota and three from Vietnam. They then moved to Maine and adopted three more older children, two through the Maine Department of Human Services and one from India. Dawn and Ed adopted nine children in total. Though their own family was now complete, in 1977, Dawn's concern for the children still waiting in the foster care system prompted her to found the Maine Adoption Placement Service, MAPS, in Houlton, ME. Her original mission was to place special needs children and to educate and train their new adoptive families in a supportive environment. After ten years, the program expanded its services to include a housing component for pregnant teens and young women. Today, there are MAPS offices and programs with housing for pregnant and parenting teens in Portland, Bangor, and Houlton. The program also has licensed offices in Boston, Tampa, FL, and Silverthorne, CO. The Colorado office has also a therapeutic foster care program. The agency dawn founded is also licensed in Vermont, and has recently received accreditation by the Council on Accreditation of Children and Family Services, COA. MAPS was the first adoption agency to propose placement of children living in orphanages in the former Soviet Union, and that work continues to this day. The program is also functioning in Cambodia, where it offers a strong program of adoption services and humanitarian aid. MAPS also has developed programs in Kazakhstan, Romania, India, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, and Ecuador; offering families more international choices while never losing sight of its original mission of placing special needs children from the foster care system. Dawn continues to serve as CEO of the Maine Adoption Placement Service. This year she and her staff celebrate their twenty-fifth anniversary of bringing children and families together. Dawn and her team of dedicated professionals have helped to place over 3,500 children in loving homes. Dawm and Ed Degenhardt have built a family not only for themselves but also for many others. Their home has been filled with love and happiness. I am proud to know that Maine is home to a couple so full of compassion and generosity, and who have inspired countless more families, to show the same compassion and caring for children in our state and around the globe.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate is considering, and will shortly pass, the Mercury Reduction Act of 2002. This legislation addresses the very serious problem of mercury in the environment and mercury disposal. It takes special aim at one of the most common and widely distributed sources of mercury; and that is, mercury fever thermometers. At the same time, the legislation will also create a nationwide policy for dealing with surplus mercury. I introduced this bill quite some time ago. It has bipartisan support. I am delighted that the Senate will be approving it this evening. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that is widespread in the environment and is particularly harmful to developing children. In fact, a National Academy of Sciences report released last year attributed mercury exposure to birth defects and brain damage in up to 60,000 newborn children each year. Mercury takes on a highly toxic organic form known as methylmercury when it enters the environment. Methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into the bloodstream and distributed to all the tissues in the body, including the brain. Of course, with young children this is particularly problematic because their brains are still developing. This organic mercury can accumulate in the food chain and become concentrated in some species of fish, posing a health threat to people who consume the fish. For this reason, 40 States have issued freshwater fish advisories that warn certain individuals, such as pregnant women, to restrict or avoid consuming fish from infected bodies of water. One prevalent source of mercury in the environment is, as I said, mercury fever thermometers. Many of us know from personal experience how easy it is to drop a mercury thermometer and see it break. In fact, in 1998 the American Poison Control Center received 18,000 phone calls from consumers who had broken mercury thermometers. One mercury thermometer contains about 1 gram of mercury. That does not sound like much, but let me tell you what the consequences are of just 1 gram of mercury. Despite its small size, the mercury in one thermometer, if released annually into the environment, is enough to contaminate all the fish in a 20-acre lake. That is how powerful a neurotoxin mercury is. The bill we are about to pass calls for a nationwide ban on the sale of mercury fever thermometers. It would also provide grants for swap programs to help consumers exchange mercury thermometers for digital or other alternatives. Digital thermometers are easier to read. They are much quicker to use. They do not break easily. And, most of all, they do not contain mercury. My bill will allow millions of consumers across the Nation to receive free digital thermometers in exchange for their mercury thermometers. By bringing mercury thermometers in for proper disposal, consumers will also help to ensure that the mercury from their thermometers does not end up polluting our lakes and threatening our health. It will also reduce the risk of breakage and contamination inside the home. An important component of my bill is the safe disposal of mercury that is collected from these thermometer exchange programs. Many States have started these kinds of exchange programs--communities have as well--but then they are left with the mercury from them, and they don't really have a good means for disposing of them. My legislation directs the EPA to ensure that the mercury is properly collected and stored in order to keep it out of the environment and out of commerce. After all, if we collect all this mercury from fever thermometers but then it is sold back to India and then shipped back to the United States in other products, we are really not solving the problem. We want to make sure this mercury does not reenter the environment so that it will not be sent to India, one of the largest manufacturers of mercury thermometers. The mercury collected from thermometer exchange programs is only part of the problem. There is a bigger problem, and that is the global circulation of mercury. Let me give an example. When the HoltraChem manufacturing plant in Orrington, ME, shut down 2 years ago, the plant was left with over 100 tons of unwanted mercury and no known way to permanently dispose of it. In total, about 3,000 tons of mercury is held at similar plants across the United States. In addition, large amounts of mercury are still being mined around the world. For example, in 1999, Algeria mined 400 tons of virgin mercury. In total, approximately 2,000 tons of new mercury is mined every year. Moreover, the Department of Defense currently has a stockpile of over 4,000 tons of mercury that it doesn't want but doesn't know what to do with. Why are Algeria and other countries still mining large amounts of an element that is a neurotoxin, when the United States and other countries are doing their best to remove this extremely toxic element from the environment? And how will the United States dispose of the huge amounts of mercury at chlor-alkali plants and other no longer needed sources? My bill creates an interagency task force to address these very questions. The task force will be chaired by the Administrator of the EPA and comprised of members from other Federal agencies involved with mercury. Specifically, my bill directs this task force to find ways to reduce the mercury threat to humans and the environment, to identify a long- term means of disposing of mercury, and to address the excess mercury problem from mines as well as from other industrial sources. In sum, this task force is directed to identify comprehensive solutions to the global mercury problem. In one year, the mercury task force will make recommendations to Congress for permanently disposing mercury, for retiring mercury from plants and other sources, and for reducing the amount of new mercury that is mined every year. At that time, it will be up to Congress to act upon the recommendations of this task force. In the meantime, this bill will make significant progress toward reducing one of the most widespread sources of mercury contamination in the environment by banning the sale nationwide of mercury fever thermometers. I am very pleased the Senate will pass my legislation shortly. I thank the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their strong bipartisan support of this legislation. This bill is a modest bill, in many ways, but it addresses a very serious problem. It will help make our environment a safer place and help our children avoid exposure to one of the most toxic elements in our environment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill. Land conservation funding is the critical component of this legislation--funding for land conservation preserves, wetlands, open fields, barrens, and woodlands that are threatened by ever-increasing pressures from development. I would like to highlight three land conservation projects funded in this bill that are of particular significance to the State of Maine. First, let me congratulate the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Byrd and Burns, for producing a bill that includes a generous amount for land conservation effort in the face of severe fiscal constraints. The Forest Legacy Program, in particular, is funded at $80 million in this bill, which represents a nearly 25-percent increase from last year's level. This is a remarkable achievement considering that when I first joined the Senate in 1997, the Forest Legacy Program was funded at only $2 million. I am a very strong supporter of the Forest Legacy Program because it recognizes that our forests are both the source of good jobs and of boundless recreational opportunities for our sportsmen, our hunters, our hikers, and everyone who enjoys the great outdoors. I am very pleased, therefore, that the bill before us today includes $2.9 million in Forest Legacy funding for an important project in Maine. It is known as the West Branch Project. The funding that is in this legislation will help us complete this important land conservation effort. This historic project has been more than 3 years in the making, and it is a testament to what can be accomplished when the Federal Government teams up with private landowners, private nonprofit groups, and State and local governments to preserve special lands. I have worked hard with my senior colleague from Maine to help this project reach fruition. This significant project will protect 330,000 acres of lakefront and forest lands in some of the most pristine areas of the State of Maine. Much of the West Branch lands make up the viewshed from Mt. Katahdin, Maine's largest peak and the northernmost point of the Appalachian Trail. Their protection through the Forest Legacy Program is critical for the well-being of Maine's recreational and natural resources. Moreover, protection of this land through the Forest Legacy Program will enable the landowners to continue to supply area mills and support the local economy while allowing the public continued access to the beautiful lakes, streams, and back country wildlands that are characteristic of this area. That is why the Forest Legacy Program is such a good one. It recognizes that our forests have multiple purposes, that they can provide good jobs for those in the forest products industry as well as being a source of beautiful recreational opportunities for all of us who enjoy walking through the woods or fishing or hunting or enjoying the lakes and streams that abound in those forests. Regrettably, the House Interior appropriations bill does not contain any funding for completing the West Branch Project; therefore, I hope the Senate position will prevail in conference. Another land conservation project that is important to my State is the protection of the 8,600-acre Leavitt Plantation Forest. I, again, thank the managers of this bill for including $600,000 for this project in their legislation. Leavitt is the largest contiguous forest in southern Maine. The forest was targeted for development 2 years ago, when it was scheduled for auction in as many as 13 separate parcels. Fortunately, Renewable Resources, a timber management company, approached the Maine Department of Conservation and the Nature Conservancy with a plan to protect Leavitt Plantation. Working together with the owner of the property, the company agreed to purchase the tract up to the New Hampshire border and to sell a conservation easement that will protect wildlife habitat, while allowing the property to continue to be managed for forestry and recreation. Finally, the bill includes $3 million to purchase critical shorebird nesting areas within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. It is easy to see why so many are committed to protecting the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge's 5,000 acres are home to rich and diverse wildlife habitats, including coastal salt marshes, barrier beaches, forested wetlands, coastal meadows, and upland forests. During the course of the year, more than 250 species of birds, 47 species of mammals, and 35 species of reptiles and amphibians can be found at the refuge. What is most remarkable about the refuge is that all of this wildlife and habitat diversity is located in Maine's most populated region. So this makes this wildlife refuge a particularly special place to the people of southern Maine. The funding in this bill for Rachel Carson will help protect the habitat found on these lands. In addition, it will preserve open space in a region of Maine that faces tremendous development pressure. This project serves as yet another example of how nonprofit and community organizations can work together with the Federal Government to identify and acquire critical lands from willing private sellers that otherwise might be lost forever to sprawl and other development. It takes considerable resources for the Federal Government to be an effective partner in the effort to protect habitat and preserve open space, particularly in high-growth areas such as southern Maine where the cost of land is increasingly high. That is why I have worked so hard in Washington to secure the resources needed to support these community-based conservation efforts in my home State. Rachel Carson, the patron of the Wildlife Refuge, once said of her substantial accomplishments: The beauty of the living world I was trying to save has always been uppermost in my mind. . . . Now I can believe I have at least helped a little. I think Rachel Carson would agree that the land conservation funding in the Interior bill we are considering today is helping, piece by piece, to preserve ``the beauty of the living world'' and to ``help a little.'' I am very pleased to support the land conservation efforts in the bill. Again, I thank the managers for their leadership in this area. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.