Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Frist, Lieberman, DeWine, Roberts, and Sessions to introduce the Math, Science, and Special Education Teacher Recruitment Act of 2002. I particularly want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his tireless efforts and his leadership on this issue. The legislation we have before us today is, in large part, a product of his commitment to affordable education. I would also like to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his assistance and his dedication to solving America's teacher shortage. The legislation we are introducing is designed to recruit teachers with an expertise in math, science, or special education to work in schools with high concentrations of low-income students by offering substantial assistance with their student loan payments. All across our Nation, public schools are struggling to fill teaching positions with qualified teachers. In the 2001-2002 school year, administrators had to hire an estimated 200,000 new teachers just to maintain the current teacher/student radio. Although universities continue to produce a greater number of teachers each year, the profession is losing too many of its most qualified and experienced personnel to retirement. In Maine, for example, 30.2 percent of teachers are over the age of 50. With such a large portion of the profession nearing retirement, additional replacements will be needed in the next few years. The national teaching shortage is expected to continue throughout the next decade, making it more and more difficult for schools to find qualified instructors. Attracting new faculty is difficult enough, but finding applicants with backgrounds in math, science, or special education can be particularly demanding. Among first year teachers, approximately 55 percent graduated from college with a bachelors in general education. Many more graduated with liberal arts degrees or majors unrelated to the curriculum they teach. The result is a system where only 38 percent of public school teachers hold subject-matter specific degrees. In Maine, the shortage of qualified applicants is most severe with regard to math, science, special education, and foreign languages. Eighty nine percent of our high schools reported a shortage in math teachers, and 87 percent reported a shortage of science teachers. With the recent developments in technology and computing, it is becoming more important than ever that our schoolchildren enter the workforce with a firm grasp of math and science. Yet, it is more and more difficult to attract math and science specialists to the teaching profession. As for special education, the Council for Exceptional Children reports that 50,000 special education positions were unfilled or filled by teachers without a full certification. If this teacher shortage is a burden on suburban school districts with ample resources, you can imagine the strain it puts on high poverty school systems. Problems are amplified in high-need areas: Teachers are likely to be the least experienced, often just out of school, they are less likely to hold a masters degree, and they are less likely to have majored in their field of instruction. To help deal with this epidemic, Senator FRIST and I put together a proposal that would expand the current loan forgiveness program for math and science teachers who are willing to teach in high-poverty areas. Under the Act, teachers who commit to teach for five consecutive years in a low-income/high-need area would be eligible for $17,500 in loan forgiveness instead of the current benefit of $5,000. To meet the pressing need for special educators, the proposal would also make special educators eligible for the loan assistance for the first time. We expect this legislation will expand upon the successes of the current program and encourage a greater number of college graduates to enter the teaching profession. We are also hopeful that it will encourage more of the best qualified teachers to consider teaching in high need areas. We are delighted that the President has included $45 million in his budget for a similar proposal. Once again, President Bush has chosen to make education a priority, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I praise Senator Grassley for his heroic efforts in trying to bring together a bipartisan group to come up with a package that would help our economy recover. I am disappointed the Senate majority leader has announced his intention to abandon work on the economic recovery package. In light of that reality, however, it is absolutely imperative that the Senate move today to extend to unemployed workers an additional 13 weeks of benefits. This has been needed for a long time, and it is something I have been working on for the past 4 months. In October of last year, I introduced a bipartisan bill for a 13-week extension. I was joined by Senators Landrieu, Gordon Smith, Cleland, and Voinovich. We introduced this bill because we thought it was important to quickly pass a measure of additional security for the 7 million unemployed workers across our Nation. Since that time, unemployment rolls have swelled by 900,000 and over 1.2 million Americans have exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits without being able to find new jobs. Last week, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I wrote to the Senate leaders to ask them to call up legislation extending unemployment benefits as soon as possible. I am pleased that the assistant leader has indicated his intention to do just that. Unfortunately, we saw the handwriting on the wall, spelling the demise of the broader economic recovery legislation which I believe is still very much needed. Regular unemployment benefits end after 26 weeks in most States. When times are good and businesses are hiring, that is an adequate period of time for most unemployed workers to either find new jobs or to be rehired to their old jobs. In fact, that usually happens long before the 26 weeks have expired. However, when times are tough--and they are tough now--finding work is much more difficult and many unemployed workers exhaust their 26 weeks of regular unemployment compensation. Congress needs to do what it has traditionally done whenever our country has been plunged into a recession. That is to temporarily extend the safety net by providing 13 additional weeks of unemployment compensation. This package would do just that for up to an additional 13 weeks for workers who lost their jobs after the economic downturn began in March and who have exhausted their benefits prior to being rehired or finding new employment. More than 10,000 unemployed workers in my home State of Maine exhausted their unemployment benefits last year without being able to find a new job. They work hard. They want to work. They want new employment. And they have been looking very diligently. However, the economy is such that they simply have been unable to find new work. An unemployment extension would provide immediate relief to hundreds of thousands of Americans, including the 10,000 Mainers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and have yet to find work. Over the course of the coming year, approximately 3 million Americans who are out of work and looking for a job would be assisted. This proposal would provide approximately $60 million in assistance to unemployed workers in Maine alone. These are our neighbors; these are families who have been hurt most by the economic downturn. Let us, therefore, today pass this much needed legislation to extend benefits to millions of unemployed workers. Even if we have failed in coming up with a compromise on the broader package, we can at least do that, and do it today.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Missouri in strong support of this amendment to help our small businesses. Over 95 percent of the businesses in this Nation qualify as small businesses. They are the businesses that are creating the vast majority of new jobs. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and the backbone of virtually every community in our country. Yet the economic stimulus package put forth by the majority leader does virtually nothing to stimulate this essential part of our economy. The Bond-Collins amendment would rectify this omission by allowing small businesses to expense up to $40,000 worth of new equipment that they placed in service this year, or will next year. That would give a real boost to the economy, and it would encourage those small companies that have put investment plans on hold, in the wake of the attacks on our Nation and the economic downturn, to proceed with their investment plans. That, in turn, would stimulate the production of more equipment and the creation of new jobs. Let me give you an example from my home State of Maine of the positive impact that this amendment would have. Terry Skillin, of Skillins Greenhouses, is a fourth-generation Maine family business, founded in 1885. Skillins employs between 70 and 120 employees, depending on the season, for its landscaping, greenhouse, and floral business. Terry Skillins told me that his company is looking to expand but to do so takes money. From tractors to conveyor belts to machines that build flowerpots automatically, the equipment that he needs to buy is expensive. Terry said that raising the small business expense limit to $40,000 would help enormously, by allowing him to go ahead with a planned expansion. Terry said something else that I think is very important and that we need to remember. He said it is critical that the increased expensing be available not only for the remainder of this year but for next year as well. He told me that it often takes more than one year for a small business to carry out an expansion plan, and that if the increased expensing were available for two years, his ability to grow Skillins Greenhouses over the entire period would be far greater. I think we should heed Terry's advice and help small businesses so they can drive our economy back to prosperity. It seems to me that, if we are striving to reach a consensus on the economic recovery package, as I believe we must do, we should include an amendment that is specifically targeted to helping our small businesses pull through this difficult time. Our amendment has been endorsed by the Nation's largest small business group, the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The NFIB represents 600,000 members nationwide and is key-voting this amendment. Finally, I note that the idea of an expansion in the small business expensing provision has been common to many of the economic recovery plans that we have debated. It was part of both plans passed by the House of Representatives. It was included in the Centrist Coalition plan that six Members--three Members on each side of the aisle-- negotiated this past December. It was also included in the Democrats' plan, which was supported by the Senate Finance Committee. Unfortunately, however, it is not in the plan before us. The Bond-Collins amendment would seek to remedy that omission by providing the boost to small businesses. I am convinced that if we give tax incentive to small businesses, they will help to pull us through these difficult economic times. Again, it is small businesses that create the vast majority of new jobs in this country, and we need to give them the incentives they need to help boost our economy. I yield the remainder of my 5 minutes, reserving time for our side.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time allotted on the amendment on this side.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his kind comments. The Senator from Oklahoma brought up a very important point. It is very burdensome recordkeeping for small businesses to have to deal with depreciation schedules and sometimes very unrealistic recovery periods. For example, most computers are required to be depreciated over a 5- year period, but we all know from our experience that the usual life of a computer is 2 to 3 years. The Senator from Oklahoma has raised an important point. Not only will this put more cash into the pockets of small businesses and allow them to go ahead with investments that have been put on hold because of this tax incentive, but it will also relieve them from some very burdensome recordkeeping requirements. That simplification is another advantage of the Bond-Collins amendment. I thank my colleague from Missouri who does such a great job as the ranking minority member of the Senate Small Business Committee. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this amendment. I believe this is the one provision we have debated that will make a real difference to those entrepreneurs throughout our country, to those small mom-and-pop firms that are creating good jobs in communities throughout our country. So I hope we will have a strong show of support for this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our amendment is as straightforward as it is effective. Under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, a small business can deduct up to $24,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service in any given year. The deduction is phased out for taxpayers that invest more than $200,000 per year in qualifying property. For the rest of this year and for all of next year, the Bond- Collins amendment permitted small businesses to expense up to $40,000 in new equipment purchases per year. So the limit would go from $24,000 to $40,000. It would also increase the total investment limit from $200,000 to $325,000. The purpose of our amendment is to encourage small businesses to make important investments that create jobs. It would allow them to write off more of their new equipment purchases immediately. Many small businesses have put on hold investments in equipment that they were planning to make in the wake of the September 11 attacks and because of the poor economy. This tax incentive would help encourage them to go ahead with these critical investments. Direct expensing allows small businesses to also avoid the complicated rules of depreciation as well as the unrealistic recovery periods for many assets. For example, under current law a computer must be depreciated over 5 years, even though we all know from the experience in our offices that the useful life of most computers is 2 to 3 years. Our amendment would also help to address a critical need of small businesses to access more capital. As the Small Business Administration has noted: Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's greatest economic policy challenge for small business in [this] century. As our economy has slid into recession, capital has become increasingly scarce for smaller companies. Indeed, venture capital investment in the third quarter of 2001--which is the latest data available--represents a 31-percent decline from the previous quarter and a 73-percent decline from just 1 year ago. So our small businesses are having great difficulty in accessing the capital they need. Moreover, the capital gap disproportionately affects minority-owned and women-owned businesses. By raising the section 179 expensing limit by two-thirds, our amendment will, in effect, free up more capital for small businesses to purchase more equipment. These purchases in turn will stimulate other industries that produce that new equipment. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has pointed out, enacting temporary expensing provisions would have the ``most immediate impact'' on our economy of all the provisions and proposals that have been advanced. It is the right medicine and it is the right tonic for our economy today. I have spoken with entrepreneurs in my home State of Maine about what the impact would be on their particular business if we were to increase the expensing allowance. They have told me, without exception, that our amendment is needed and that it will help to stimulate our sluggish economy. Let me give an example by quoting Terry Skillins of Skillins' Greenhouses, a fourth-generation Maine family business founded in 1885. Skillins' employs between 70 and 120 employees, depending upon the season, in its landscaping, greenhouse, and floral businesses. Terry told me that Skillins' is looking to expand but that to do so is expensive. It takes money. From tractors to conveyor belts to machines that fill flowerpots automatically, the equipment that Skillins' needs to expand is expensive. Terry says raising the small business expensing limit to $40,000 would help his company a lot. He told me something else that I think is very important and telling. Terry said that it is very important for the increased expensing to last through next year. He told me it often takes more than 1 year for a small business to carry out an expansion plan and if the increased expensing were available for 2 years, his ability to grow his business, Skillins' Greenhouses, would be far greater. I think we should heed Terry's advice and help our small businesses, just as they will help drive our economy back to prosperity. We also must not lose sight of the human side to this amendment. As Mark Carpentier, the owner of a small media business in Portland, ME, recently told me, increasing the expensing limit will provide his business with more cash, cash he could use to hire another employee, to pay his employees more, or to purchase them better health insurance--a major problem for many small businesses as premiums continue to soar. It seems to me that a true consensus package, a package that is going to make a real difference to our economic recovery, should and must include a provision like the Bond-Collins amendment to help small businesses pull through these difficult times and to give them the boost they need so they can be, once again, the engine of our economy. Indeed, an increase in the small business expensing limit is a provision that is common to pretty much every economic recovery package other than the one advanced by the majority leader. Increased small business expensing was included in both the economic recovery packages that passed the House, the Centrist Coalition proposal--which I, along with my colleague from Maine, with Senator Voinovich, and three of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joined together to draft--and the Senate Finance Committee bill which was reported with unanimous Democratic support in committee. The help that our amendment would provide comes at a relatively modest cost to the Treasury. It is needed by small businesses across the Nation. I believe it would make a real difference. A survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, showed that the September 11 attacks and the economic downturn have significantly damaged small business economic activity. According to the NFIB's members, 34 percent of those responding reported that their sales are lower since September 11; 13 percent reported that business investment plans had been postponed or canceled altogether. The Senate, tomorrow, will have the opportunity to put the investment plans of our Nation's small businesses back on track. This is a modest step we can take, but it is a step that will make a real difference to our small businesses and to the millions of employees for whom they provide good jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which the NFIB considers to be a key one in favor of small business. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent a letter from the NFIB, endorsing the Bond-Collins amendment, be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have always been a very strong supporter of small business, the engine of our economy. According to the Small Business Administration, it is our smaller firms that account for three-quarters of our Nation's economic growth and almost all of the net new jobs that are created. These are good jobs, jobs that make our communities strong. Indeed, small businesses are often the last to lay off employees because the employees tend to be their neighbors, their family members, and their friends. They will go to great lengths to try to retain employees while a larger corporation might cut without much thought. More than 95 percent of all the businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. Yet the economic recovery plan put forth by the distinguished majority leader does not assist this critical sector of our economy. I support much of what is in Senator Daschle's package. For example, I have long proposed extending unemployment compensation to help those workers who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits yet have been unable to find new work because of the poor economy. I also support the provisions in Senator Daschle's plan to have stimulus checks go to those taxpayers and other citizens who did not receive rebate checks last summer and fall. While I support much of what is in the majority leader's package, it does virtually nothing for small businesses. I think that is a serious mistake because if we can get the small business sector booming again, we will increase employment and stimulate our economy. That is why I have offered, with my good friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, the ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, an amendment that gives small businesses the boost they need to grow, to create new jobs, and to energize our sluggish economy. I included a very similar provision as part of an economic recovery bill I introduced on October 4. I ask unanimous consent two more cosponsors be added to the Bond- Collins amendment, Senator Bennett and Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I be permitted to speak in favor of amendment No. 2717.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Oregon in submitting this concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that health care coverage is of the utmost importance and that a National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month should be established to promote awareness and education about the importance of health insurance coverage. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There still are far too many Americans without health insurance. An estimated 42 million Americans do not have health care coverage, including more than 150,000 people in Maine. 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 be preventable. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressures on our hospitals and emergency rooms, which already are 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 room. 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. This is one of the reasons that the cost of health insurance has soared in recent years. In Maine, employers, and in particular small employers, have faced premium increases of 15 to 30 percent or more. This is a remarkable contrast to the mid-to-late1990s, when health insurance premiums rose less than 3 percent, if at all. Clearly we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable. 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. In Maine, small business is not just a segment of the economy, it is the economy. I am therefore particularly concerned that uninsured, working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. Some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. This is why I have introduced legislation with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, to help small employers cope with rising costs. Our bill, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, will provide 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 and will help businesses that do offer insurance to continue coverage even in the face of rising costs. While costs are clearly an problem, knowledge should not be an additional barrier to health insurance access. Public education and awareness initiatives are also critical to the success of our efforts to expand health coverage. Many small employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make this benefit more affordable. For example, in one recent survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. More than 60 percent did not know that insurers may not deny them health coverage even when the health status of their workers is poor. Small businesses clearly need better information about health insurance, which is why public awareness, outreach and education programs like the one this resolution is promoting are so important. The same is true for our public programs. One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 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 now provides affordable health insurance coverage to over two million children nationwide, including over 10,000 in Maine's Cub Care and expanded Medicaid program. Even so, hundreds of thousands of qualified children nationwide have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance. The resolution we are submitting today is simple. It expresses the sense of Congress that a National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month be established to promote a comprehensive educational effort about the importance of health care coverage; increase awareness of the available health care coverage options; and inform those eligible for public insurance programs about ways to access those programs. The resolution further calls on the President to issue a proclamation calling on the federal government, States, local governments and businesses in the United States to conduct appropriate programs and activities to promote this educational effort. The resolution we are submitting today will assist in our efforts to expand access to affordable health care by helping small businesses, families and uninsured individuals learn more about health insurance and the various options which may already be available to them, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by saluting the outstanding leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg. It is due to their tireless efforts, their commitment to a quality education, and their persistence and hard work that we can celebrate today the passage of landmark education reform legislation. It has been a great pleasure to work with them, with Secretary of Education Paige, and with the President to reach this day. During the past year, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as well as with the President and the Secretary of Education on this landmark education legislation. In approaching the reauthorization of the ESEA, I had three goals. One was to provide greater flexibility and more funding to our small or rural school districts. The second was to strengthen and put greater emphasis on early reading programs so that we could in fact achieve the goal of leaving no child behind. The third was fulfilling the Federal commitment to funding its share of special education costs. I am very pleased that we will realize the first two objectives through the Rural Education Achievement Program as well as the Reading First Program included in this bill. Although I am disappointed by the failure of the IDEA mandatory funding amendments, I know the Senate support for IDEA full funding will carry over into next year. And it will remain one of my highest priorities. The No Child Left Behind Act includes many innovative and promising reforms. Among the improvements is the Rural Education Achievement Program which I authored. The program would benefit school districts with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 284 school districts have fewer than 600 students. Rural school districts encounter two specific problems with the current system of Federal funding. The first is that formula grants often do not reach small, rural schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Maine district, for example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug- free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve the goal of that Federal program, yet the school district could not use the funds for any other program. Second, rural schools are often shut out of the competitive grant process because they lack the administrative staff and the grant writers that large school districts have to apply for competitive grants from the Federal Government. So they do not get to participate in those programs at all. To eliminate this inequity and give rural schools more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation will allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical grant programs and use them to address that school district's highest priorities. In one school district, that might mean hiring a reading specialist or math teacher. In another, the priority might be upgrading the science lab or increasing professional development or buying a new computer for the library. Whatever the need of that district, the money could be combined for that purpose. Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives would mean for one Maine school district in northern Maine. The Frenchville and St. Agatha school system, which serves 346 students, receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,705 for Safe and Drug Free Schools to $10,045 under the Class Size Reduction Act. How do you fight drug use with $1,700? And how do you reduce class sizes with $10,000? The grants are so small they are not really useful in accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs is just over $16,000. Yet each requires separate reporting and compliance standards, and each is used for different--federally mandated--purposes. Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight separate reports, for four programs, to receive the $16,000. Under our bill, his school district would be freed from the multiple applications and reports; paperwork and bureaucracy would be reduced, and the school would be able to make better use of its Federal funding. The other problem facing small rural districts is their lack of administrative capacity. In some cases, the superintendent acts as the sole administrator. With such minimal administrative resources, the school district has no opportunity to apply for competitive grants. Here in Washington, we are surrounded by large urban school districts, each with more than 100,000 students and often having a central administrative office with specialized staff and professional grant writers. How can rural districts with a single administrator be expected to compete for the same grant opportunities? To compensate for the inequity, our legislation provides supplemental funding. In the case of the Frenchville district, schools would receive an additional $34,000. Combined with the $16,000 already provided, the Rural Education Achievement Program would make sure the District had $50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing needs. That $50,000 can make a real difference in the education of school children in northern Maine. The district could hire a math teacher or a reading specialist, whatever it needed. The district could purchase technology, upgrade professional development efforts, or engage in any other local reforms. With this tremendous flexibility and additional funding come responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period. The focus of the No Child Left Behind Act is accountability, and rural schools are no exception. Schools will be held responsible for what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will happen.'' I know most superintendents feel exactly the same way. I am equally delighted that today's education bill will include significant new resources for early reading intervention programs. Unfortunately, today, in many schools, there are few services available to help a child who has a reading difficulty. Oftentimes, no help is provided at all until that child reaches the third grade and is identified for special education. For students who have reached the third grade without the ability to read, every paragraph, every assignment, every day in the classroom is a struggle. They constantly battle embarrassment and feelings of inadequacy, and they fall further and further behind. It is no wonder so many children without basic reading skills lose their natural curiosity and excitement for learning. The two new reading programs--Reading First and Early Reading First-- in this legislation are based on the principle that if we act swiftly and teach reading effectively in the early grades, we will provide our children with a solid foundation for future academic success. Indeed, the best way to ensure that no child is left behind is to teach every child to read. If a child's reading difficulty is detected early, and he or she receives help in kindergarten or the first grade, that child has a 90 to 95 percent chance of becoming a good reader. These early intervention programs work. They are a wonderful investment. By contrast, if intervention does not occur during the period between kindergarten and third grade, the ``window of literacy'' closes and the chances of that child ever becoming a good reader plummet. Moreover, if a child with reading disabilities becomes part of the special education system, the chances of his or her leaving special education are less than 5 percent. So this is a program that is going to improve the quality of life for these children, help them to become successful, and, in many cases, will avoid the need for special education and all the costs involved in providing that kind of education. These are truly investments that make sense. Other than involved parents, a good teacher with proper literacy training is the single most important prerequisite to a student's reading success. We also know that reading is the gateway to learning other subjects and to future academic achievement. That is why it is so important that this bill make such a national commitment to reading programs. Reading First is a comprehensive approach to promoting literacy in reading in all 50 States. It will support the efforts in States, such as Maine, that have already made great strides under the Reading Excellence Act in promoting literacy. Indeed, I am very proud of the work the State of Maine has done. Our fourth graders lead the Nation year after year in reading and other subjects. President Bush deserves enormous credit for placing reading at the top of our education agenda. The First Lady, Laura Bush, has also repeatedly highlighted the importance of reading. President Bush also deserves credit for being willing to work with us, the Members on both sides of the aisle, to hammer out the best possible education reform legislation. Again, I thank the President for all of his efforts, and Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, because without their combined leadership we would not be here today. Thanks to their hard work, we have quality legislation before us today that will reform the public education system and bring our nation closer to the goal of providing every child with an opportunity to succeed. With the improvements in rural education, and the emphasis in this bill on reading, flexibility, and accountability, as well as a host of other reforms, I am delighted to support this reauthorization of ESEA and to see our hard work and efforts over the past year come to fruition. I am convinced this legislation is going to make a real difference for the children of our country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their forthrightness, their knowledge and their determination to keep America strong. I also commend them for their continued dedication to our men and women in uniform and the efforts they have undertaken in this important appropriations bill to provide them with the compensation, tools and equipment they need to maintain America's pre-eminence in the world.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished Chairman and would like to begin with the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, which has been the backbone of the Navy's surface fleet. The Navy has indicated in its most recent study of the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class destroyer industrial base, and in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that three DDG-51 destroyers per year is the most economical rate of procurement. Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act provided the authority to the Secretary of the Navy to enter into contracts to procure three vessels in each fiscal year 2002 and 2003. The FY2002 National Defense Authorization bill includes $2.966 billion for the procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee added report language agreeing with the Navy's long standing assessment that the destroyer industrial base is at risk unless three destroyers are built each year, or unless the destroyer shipbuilders attain significant other work beyond their historic level. As such, the FY2002 national Defense authorization report reiterates that the Secretary of the Navy should include procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the FY2003 budget request. I strongly support the inclusion in the fiscal year 2003 defense budget of a third DDG-51, which would be built at Bath Iron Works in my home state. The integrity of our shipbuilding industrial base largely depends upon it. I would ask that chairman and ranking Member whether they agree with me on this important point.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, a matter of great importance to our national security--our naval shipbuilding programs. As my colleagues are aware, both the House and Senate national Defense authorization bills for the current fiscal year contain provisions supporting continued production of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the investment of research and development in a next generation destroyer or ``DD(X)'' program, and advanced procurement for the LPD 17 program. I am elated to see that the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill for FY2002 contain similar provisions, but troubled by the action that was taken in the house, particularly on the DD(X) program. I appreciate the chairman and ranking Member's support for these shipbuilding programs and would like to take a few minutes to discuss the vital need for them. All of these programs are critical to sustaining a strong forward deployed naval presence, while addressing the anti-access challenges faced by our men and women who continue to protect our nation's assets, interests, and freedom.

Ms. COLLINS. The next generation destroyer, now the DD(X) program, is the Navy's future and way ahead to transform our naval forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This program, which will emphasize a common hullform and technology development, will form the foundation of our future destroyer and cruiser production. The Navy will use the advanced technology and networking capabilities from the DD(X) in the development of additional ships in the DD(X) family of ships program. As Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, earlier this year, the DD(X) program ``is central to our [naval] transformation effort . . . and is another step toward the creation of a more integrated Navy/Marine Corps team.'' It is therefore critical that the Senate's FY2002 budget level for the DD(X) program be increased or at least retained in conference.

Ms. COLLINS. As always, I am impressed by the ranking member's knowledge and his grasp of the issues, and I appreciate that we are in agreement as to the value and need for this critical ship. I look forward to our continued work together in support of this and all of these shipbuilding programs.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also would like to briefly speak on the LPD-17 program, which is a critical ship for the modernization of the Navy's amphibious force. Each of these ships can carry more than 700 Marines and their equipment to shore to perform their mission. The LPD- 17 program is critical to replace four aging classes of ships and to significantly increase the operational capabilities of the Marine Corps.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine in introducing the Kids and Terrorism Preparedness Act to strengthen our ability to protect our children as our Nation prepares for and responds to acts of terrorism. Every generation has a defining event. Our parents will never forget the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the baby boomers will never forget the day President Kennedy was shot. This generation will always remember September 11 and the horrific images of the two airliners slamming into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. These terrorist attacks have evolved into an ongoing crisis that has created some particularly difficult challenges for our Nation's children. Thousands of children lost a family member or loved one on September 11. Tens of thousands more are close to another child who suffered an immediate loss. Millions of other children across the country watched the repeated broadcasts of the fiery crashes, workers falling to their deaths, the terrible building collapses and the panic that followed. These images have enacted an emotional and psychological toll on all Americans, but children are particularly vulnerable. Moreover, the current anthrax scare has only added to the anxiety of children who now fear that their own houses may not be a sanctuary against a bioterrorist attack delivered through the mail. As our Nation takes steps to plan and prepare for future attacks, it is critical that we consider the unique needs of children who are more susceptible to biological and chemical attacks. Since they are smaller than adults, they may get sick from smaller amounts of harmful substances. They have a higher respiratory rate than adults, which means that they would get relatively larger doses of an inhaled substance in the same period of time. Moreover, some dense chemical agents, like chlorine and sarin, accumulate close to the ground, right in the breathing zone of children. The problem is compounded because our current tools to combat terrorism are now always sensitive to children's needs. For example, Cipro, which is being widely prescribed for people who have been exposed to anthrax, is generally not recommended for use by children because of concerns that it can impair bone and joint growth. It is clear that immediate steps must be taken to develop drugs and vaccines appropriate for children that can be used to respond to a bioterrorist threat or attack. Children also need different sized medical equipment from adults. I am therefore extremely troubled that, at present, many ambulances and emergency departments do not have child-sized equipment and supplies, such as oxygen masks, IV-tubes and neck braces. We must therefore do more to support our Emergency Medical Services workers and ensure that they are trained and equipped to meet the specific medical needs of children. The legislation we are introducing today will help us to meet these special needs of children as our nation prepares to defend itself against terrorist threats. For example, it more than doubles the resources available through the Department of Health and Human Services Emergency Medical Services for Children program to ensure that first responders, our firefighters, our police, and our paramedics, are trained and equipped to handle the special medical needs of children. It also authorizes grants to enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical, biotech, and device industries, to formulate a plan for the development of new, and enhancement of existing, drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices that may be appropriate to prevent and treat children who are exposed to a bioterrorist attack. This is critical because children are not simply smaller versions of adults, their bodies react to drugs differently. To help meet the mental health needs of children in crisis, the legislation authorizes grants to be administered by the Center for Mental Health Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for emergency mental health prevention and treatment services for children who are directly affected by terrorist acts. To deal with other unique needs of children, our bill provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with broad authority to allocate emergency crisis response grants. Such grants could be made at the Secretary's discretion to State and local governments or public or private non-profit organizations serving children to increase the coordination and the development of bioterrorism preparedness efforts relating to the needs of children. These are difficult and dangerous times, but all is not bleak. We can take great comfort from the extraordinary resources with which America is blessed. Besides our spiritual muscle, we have a proof of economic, scientific, and material strength which we have only just begun to tap. The legislation we are introducing today will help to strengthen our response to the terrorist threat by ensuring that the special needs of children are not overlooked, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine in introducing the Kids and Terrorism Preparedness Act to strengthen our ability to protect our children as our Nation prepares for and responds to acts of terrorism. Every generation has a defining event. Our parents will never forget the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the baby boomers will never forget the day President Kennedy was shot. This generation will always remember September 11 and the horrific images of the two airliners slamming into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. These terrorist attacks have evolved into an ongoing crisis that has created some particularly difficult challenges for our Nation's children. Thousands of children lost a family member or loved one on September 11. Tens of thousands more are close to another child who suffered an immediate loss. Millions of other children across the country watched the repeated broadcasts of the fiery crashes, workers falling to their deaths, the terrible building collapses and the panic that followed. These images have enacted an emotional and psychological toll on all Americans, but children are particularly vulnerable. Moreover, the current anthrax scare has only added to the anxiety of children who now fear that their own houses may not be a sanctuary against a bioterrorist attack delivered through the mail. As our Nation takes steps to plan and prepare for future attacks, it is critical that we consider the unique needs of children who are more susceptible to biological and chemical attacks. Since they are smaller than adults, they may get sick from smaller amounts of harmful substances. They have a higher respiratory rate than adults, which means that they would get relatively larger doses of an inhaled substance in the same period of time. Moreover, some dense chemical agents, like chlorine and sarin, accumulate close to the ground, right in the breathing zone of children. The problem is compounded because our current tools to combat terrorism are now always sensitive to children's needs. For example, Cipro, which is being widely prescribed for people who have been exposed to anthrax, is generally not recommended for use by children because of concerns that it can impair bone and joint growth. It is clear that immediate steps must be taken to develop drugs and vaccines appropriate for children that can be used to respond to a bioterrorist threat or attack. Children also need different sized medical equipment from adults. I am therefore extremely troubled that, at present, many ambulances and emergency departments do not have child-sized equipment and supplies, such as oxygen masks, IV-tubes and neck braces. We must therefore do more to support our Emergency Medical Services workers and ensure that they are trained and equipped to meet the specific medical needs of children. The legislation we are introducing today will help us to meet these special needs of children as our nation prepares to defend itself against terrorist threats. For example, it more than doubles the resources available through the Department of Health and Human Services Emergency Medical Services for Children program to ensure that first responders, our firefighters, our police, and our paramedics, are trained and equipped to handle the special medical needs of children. It also authorizes grants to enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical, biotech, and device industries, to formulate a plan for the development of new, and enhancement of existing, drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices that may be appropriate to prevent and treat children who are exposed to a bioterrorist attack. This is critical because children are not simply smaller versions of adults, their bodies react to drugs differently. To help meet the mental health needs of children in crisis, the legislation authorizes grants to be administered by the Center for Mental Health Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for emergency mental health prevention and treatment services for children who are directly affected by terrorist acts. To deal with other unique needs of children, our bill provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with broad authority to allocate emergency crisis response grants. Such grants could be made at the Secretary's discretion to State and local governments or public or private non-profit organizations serving children to increase the coordination and the development of bioterrorism preparedness efforts relating to the needs of children. These are difficult and dangerous times, but all is not bleak. We can take great comfort from the extraordinary resources with which America is blessed. Besides our spiritual muscle, we have a proof of economic, scientific, and material strength which we have only just begun to tap. The legislation we are introducing today will help to strengthen our response to the terrorist threat by ensuring that the special needs of children are not overlooked, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this week I introduced the Imported Food Safety Act of 2001. Food safety has long been a serious public health concern in America, but awareness of the vulnerability of our food supply has heightened since September 11. I have long been concerned about the adequacy of our system for screening and ensuring the safety of imported food. In 1998, in my capacity of chairing the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I began a 16-month investigation of the safety of imported foods. This investigation revealed much about the Government's flawed food safety net. Regrettably, in the intervening years little has changed, and now we must acknowledge that the systemic shortcomings can also be exploited by bioterrorists. As part of the investigation, I asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate the Federal Government's efforts to ensure the safety of imported food. In its April 1998 report, the General Accounting Office concluded that ``Federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Just last month, the GAO reiterated that conclusion in testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. During the 5 days of subcommittee hearings that I chaired, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including scientists, industry and consumer groups, government officials, the General Accounting Office, and two individuals with firsthand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry--a convicted customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. Let me briefly recount some of the subcommittee's findings which make clear why the legislation I have introduced is so urgently needed. First, weaknesses in the FDA's import controls--specifically, the ability of importers to control food shipments from the port to the point of distribution--make the system very vulnerable to fraud and deception, and clearly vulnerable to a concerted bioterrorist attack. Second, the bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety laws are so low that they are simply considered by some unscrupulous importers to be a cost of doing business. Third, maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly complicated and complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown food pathogens, such as Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect. Our recent experience with anthrax has taught us there is much that public health officials still need to know when dealing with such pathogens and bacteria. Fourth, because some imported food can be contaminated by substances that cannot be detected by visual inspections, grant programs are needed to encourage the development of food safety monitoring devices and sensors that are capable of detecting chemical and biological contaminants. Fifth, since contamination of imported food can occur at many different places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace outbreaks of foodborne illnesses back to the source of contamination requires more coordinated effort among Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for ensuring food safety, as well as improved education for health care providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne illnesses. Again, our recent experience with anthrax underscores the need for better coordination and education. Since the terrorist attacks that occurred just weeks ago, we have been living in a changed world. We are battling enemies who show no regard for the value of human life, and whose twisted minds seek to destroy those who embody democracy and freedom. It has never been as important as it is now to ensure that our food supplies are adequately protected against contamination, both inadvertent and intentional. President Bush and his administration are acting swiftly and decisively on all fronts. Among the responsibilities of the Office of Homeland Security is the protection of our livestock and agricultural systems from terrorist attack. The administration has requested additional funding to beef up security at our borders and to add more inspectors to evaluate the safety of food imports. And the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, has been working tirelessly to obtain the additional tools necessary to combat bioterrorism. On October 17, 2001, Secretary Thompson appeared before the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee, and testified about the Federal Government's efforts to ensure that the country is adequately prepared to respond to bioterrorist threats. He identified food safety and, in particular, imported foods, as vulnerable areas that require further strengthening. Similarly, at a recent hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, every single public health expert who testified before us expressed concern about the vulnerability of our food supplies. Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent. After all, FDA only inspects fewer than 1 percent of all imported food shipments that arrive in our country. Those shipments are sent from countries around the world, most of whom wish us no harm. Yet, because of the hard lessons we have had to learn since September 11, we must be more vigilant about protecting ourselves. It is vital that we take the necessary steps to close the loopholes that unscrupulous shippers have used in the past and that bioterrorists could exploit now. I first became concerned about the safety of the U.S. food supply in 1998 when I learned that fruit from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illnesses that sickened thousands of Americans. Regrettably, those type of outbreaks are far too common. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses occur each year. Fortunately, the majority of these incidents are mild and cause symptoms for only a day or two. Less fortunately, the CDC also estimates that over 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths result from those 76 million cases. And as astonishingly high as those numbers are, they are estimates, and the truth may be even more deadly. It was because of my concern that I began the subcommittee's investigation of the adequacy of our country's imported food safety system. The testimony I heard was troubling. The U.S. Customs Service told us of one particularly egregious case. It involved contaminated fish and illustrated the challenges facing federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our Nation's food supply. In 1996, Federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles. The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth. Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish had been inspected before by Federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact, it had arrived at our border 2 years before, and had been rejected by the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten shipment for 2 years before attempting to bring it into the country again, by a different route, and a different port in the hope of shipping this seafood through the inspection system. The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community service. I suppose, given how few shipments are inspected by FDA inspectors, we should count ourselves lucky that these perpetrators were caught at all since, as I mentioned earlier, fewer than 1 percent of all shipments of imported food under the jurisdiction of FDA are actually inspected. Unsafe food might have escaped detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the small amount of money currently required for the Customs' bond, which some importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish that is 2 years old past overworked Customs agents. It is imperative that Congress provide our Federal agencies with the direction, resources, and authority necessary to protect our food supply from acts of bioterrorism and to keep unsafe, unsanitary food out of the United States. I have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service, and the CDC to ensure that my legislation corrects many of the vulnerabilities that have been identified in our imported food safety system. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish. My legislation would fill the existing gaps in the food import system and provide the FDA with stronger authority to protect American consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our country. My bill would authorize FDA to deny the entry of imported food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or is likely without systemic changes to cause disease again. Second, this legislation would enable the FDA to require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior to their release into commerce. Unscrupulous shippers who have demonstrated a willingness to knowingly send tainted food to our country cannot be overlooked as potential sources of bioterrorist acts. My bill would also prohibit the practice of ``port-shopping,'' and would require that boxes containing violative foods that have been refused entry into our country be clearly marked. This latter authority is currently used with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My bill also would require the destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately reconditioned to ensure safety. What happens now is that when the food is ordered to be reexported and denied entrance into this country, it is not destroyed, even if it is completely unfit for human consumption and cannot be made safe. Third, the legislation would direct the FDA to develop criteria for use by private laboratories to collect and analyze samples of food offered for import. This will help ensure the integrity of the testing process. What happens now is that it is often the very same shipper who tried to slip the tainted food into our country who is responsible for taking it to a lab and getting it tested. Obviously, that is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house and offers very little protection to consumers. Fourth, the legislation would give ``teeth'' to the current food import system by establishing two strong deterrents--the threats of higher bonds and of debarment--for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to profit from endangering the health of American consumers. In other words, if the shipper is found to be repeatedly violating Federal laws regarding food safety, we could ban that shipper from importing anything into the United States. We will just kick them out of the business altogether. Finally, my legislation would authorize the CDC to award grants to State and local public health agencies to strengthen the public health infrastructure by updating essential items, such as laboratory and electronic reporting equipment. Grants would also be available for universities, nonprofit corporations, and industrial partners to develop new and improved sensors and tests to detect pathogens, and for professional schools and societies to develop programs to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among health care providers and the general public. We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is the safest in the world. But our system for safeguarding our citizens from imported food that has been tainted, either intentionally or inadvertently, is fundamentally flawed. We need to work together to correct this problem. In that regard, I am pleased to report that I am working with my colleagues on bipartisan bioterrorism legislation that targets problems posed by bioterrorist threats to our Nation's food supply. I believe that the measures provided for in my Imported Food Safety Act of 2001, as well as the bipartisan bioterrorism bill we are drafting, will significantly reduce this potential threat to our country. It is my hope that parts of my bill will be incorporated into the comprehensive bioterrorism bill that we are working on now and that we will pass it this year. Mr. President, we need to take action now. We have identified a threat to our food supply. We know what we need to do to put in place the safeguards that are needed. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Imported Food Safety Act of 2001. Food safety has been a serious public health concern in America for some time, but our awareness of the vulnerability of our food supply has been heightened since September 11. I have long been concerned about the adequacy of our Nation's imported food supply system. In 1998, in my capacity as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I began an in-depth 16 month investigation into the safety of food imports. This investigation revealed much about the government's flawed food safety net. Regrettably, in the intervening three years, little has changed, and now we must acknowledge that those systemic shortcomings can also be used by those who wish to perpetrate acts of bioterrorism. As part of the investigation, I requested the GAO to evaluate the federal government's efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods. In its April 1998 report, the GAO concluded that ``federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Just last month, the GAO reiterated that conclusion in testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. During five days of Subcommittee hearings, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including scientists, industry and consumer representatives, government officials, the General Accounting Office, and two persons with first-hand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry, a convicted Customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. Let me briefly recount some of the Subcommittee's findings which make it clear why this legislation is so urgently needed: weaknesses in FDA import controls, specifically the ability of importers to control food shipments from the port to the point of distribution, make the system vulnerable to fraud and deception and clearly to a terrorist attack; the bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety laws are so low that they are considered by some unscrupulous importers as the cost of doing business; maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown foodborne pathogens, like Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect; our recent experience with anthrax has taught us that there is much more public health officials need to know to ensure the safety of our food; because some imported food can be contaminated by substances that cannot be detected by visual inspection, grant programs need to be established that will encourage the rapid development of food safety monitoring sensors that are capable of detecting chemical and biological contaminants; since contamination of imported food can occur at many different places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace outbreaks of foodborne illnesses back to the source of contamination requires more coordinated effort among Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for ensuring food safety, as well as improved education for health care providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne illnesses. Again, our recent experience with anthrax underscores the need for better coordination and education. Since the terrorist attacks that occurred just weeks ago, we have been living in a changed world. We are battling enemies who show no regard for the value of human life, and whose twisted minds seek to destroy those who embody democracy and freedom. It has never been as important as it is now to ensure that our food supplies are adequately protected against contamination, both inadvertent and intentional. President Bush and his Administration are acting swiftly and decisively on all fronts. Among the responsibilities of the Office of Homeland Security is the protection of our livestock and agricultural systems from terrorist attack. And the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, has been working tirelessly to obtain the additional tools necessary to combat bioterrorism. On October 17, 2001, Secretary Thompson appeared before the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee, and testified about the Federal Government's efforts to ensure that the country is adequately prepared to respond to bioterrorist threats. He identified food safety and, in particular, imported foods, as vulnerable areas that require further strengthening. Similarly, at a recent hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, public health experts were unanimous in expressing concern about the vulnerability of our food. Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent. After all, FDA only inspects fewer than one percent of all imported food shipments that arrive in our country. Those shipments are sent from countries around the world, most of whom wish us no harm. Yet, because of the hard lessons we have had to learn since September 11, we must be more vigilant about protecting ourselves. It is vital that we take the necessary steps to close the loopholes that unscrupulous shippers have used in the past and that bioterrorists could exploit now. I first became concerned about the safety of the U.S. food supply in 1998 when I learned that fruit from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illnesses that sickened thousands of Americans. Regrettably, those type of outbreaks are far too common. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses occur each year. Fortunately, the majority of these incidents are mild and cause symptoms for only a day or two. Less fortunately, the CDC also estimates that over 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths result from those 76 million cases. And as astonishingly high as those numbers are, they are estimates, and the truth may be even more deadly. It was because of my concern that I began the Subcommittee's investigation of the adequacy of our country's imported food safety system. During the Subcommittee's hearings, the testimony I heard was troubling. The United States Customs Service told us of one particularly egregious situation. It involves contaminated fish and illustrates the challenges facing federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our Nation's food supply. In 1996, Federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles. The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth. Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish had been inspected before by Federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact, it had arrived at our border two years before, and had been rejected by the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten shipment for two years before attempting to bring it into the country again, by a different route. The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community service. I suppose we should be thankful that the perpetrators were caught in this case. After all, the unsafe food might have escaped detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the small amount of money currently required for the Custom's bond, which some importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish that is two years old past overworked Customs agents. It is imperative that Congress provide our Federal agencies with the direction, resources, and authority necessary to protect our food supply from acts of bioterrorism and to keep unsafe, unsanitary food out of the United States. I have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service, and the CDC to ensure that my legislation corrects many of the vulnerabilities that have been identified in our imported food safety system. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish. My legislation will fill the existing gaps in the food import system and provide the FDA with stronger authority to protect American consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our country. My bill would authorize FDA to deny the entry of imported food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, and is likely without systemic changes to cause disease again. Second, this legislation would enable the FDA to require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior to their release into commerce. Unscrupulous shippers who have demonstrated a willingness to knowingly send tainted food to our country cannot be overlooked as potential sources of bioterrorist acts. My bill would also prohibit the practice of ``port-shopping,'' and would require that boxes containing violative foods that have been refused entry into our country be clearly marked. This latter authority is currently used with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My bill also would require the destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately reconditioned to ensure safety. Third, the legislation would direct the FDA to develop criteria for use by private laboratories to collect and analyze samples of food offered for import. This will ensure the integrity of the testing process. Fourth, the bill would give ``teeth'' to the current food import system by establishing two strong deterrents, the threats of higher bonds and of debarment, for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to profit from endangering the health of American consumers. Finally, my bill would authorize the CDC to award grants to state and local public health agencies to strengthen the public health infrastructure by updating essential items such as laboratory and electronic-reporting equipment. Grants would also be available for universities, non-profit corporations, and industrial partners to develop new and improved sensors and tests to detect pathogens and for professional schools and professional societies to develop programs to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among healthcare providers and the public. We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is one of the safest in the world. But our system for safeguarding our people from imported food that has been tainted, either intentionally or inadvertently, is flawed. Finally, I am very pleased to also be working with my colleagues on bipartisan bioterrorism legislation that targets problems posed by bioterrorist threats to our Nation's food supply and public health. I believe that the measures provided for in my Imported Food Safety Act of 2001, and the bipartisan bioterrorism bill, will significantly reduce the threat to our country. I hope that we will pass both pieces of legislation this year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of land in the north to the small woodlots of the south, forest land helps shape the character of our entire State. While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for generations, there is a new threat to Maine's forest that requires a new approach. The threat is suburban sprawl, which has already consumed tens-of- thousands of acres of forest land in southern Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land cannot compete with the value of developed land. The problem is particularly acute here in southern Maine where a 108 percent increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of greater Portland as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.'' I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space that has given way to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Our State is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine have approved a $50- million bond to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future Board, and continue to use scarce local funds and contribute their time and money to preserve important lands and to support our State's 88 land trusts. The people of Maine are forging a new approach to preserving our working forest and protecting our communities from sprawl. It is time for the Federal Government to support these efforts. Today I am introducing the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act. The legislation, which was drafted with the advice of land owners, conservation groups, and community planners, establishes a $50-million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally-driven projects that preserve working forests. State and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, would compete for funds to purchase land or conservation easements to keep forest lands, threatened by development, in their traditional use. Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. The legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched dollar-for- dollar with State, local, or private resources. The grant program will help promote sustainable forestry and public access to forest lands. My legislation protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision and it allows non-profits, States, and municipalities--but not the Federal Government--to hold title to land or easements purchased under the program. The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, my legislation would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most important industry. Second, the resources made available as part of my legislation would be a valuable tool in communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl. Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME or another community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turned to the Federal Government for assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving decision-making at the State and local level. We can all be proud of the work being done in Maine to protect our working forests for the next generation, and I am grateful that many of the people and organizations that are leading this effort are supporting my legislation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act Congress can provide a real boost to conservation initiatives, help preserve sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.