Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had requested time to introduce a bill. I do not, however, want to interrupt the debate on the gas tax. I suggest I go after the Senator from Florida, who I understand is also going to be introducing a bill, so as not to interrupt the debate on the gas tax issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 25 years ago, the United States Congress made a commitment to pay each school in America 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for every special education student it enrolled--Washington promised it would help our local communities meet the cost of educating students with special needs. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to meet this obligation, creating an unfunded mandate that must be borne by every state and community in America. For the current school year the average per pupil expenditure is $6,000, yet we have appropriated only $702 per student only 11.7% of the cost--slightly more than one fourth of out promise. To meet the Federal commitment, the budget resolution should assume an expenditure of $15.8 billion for this year. I commend Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee for recognizing the importance of this commitment and for providing a $1 billion increase in fiscal year 2001. But this is not enough, and we must do more--we must embark on a short path to full funding. We have the resources to do it, and the amendment before the Senate starts us on our journey to full funding. What would this mean for our states and local school districts? Let's take Maine as an example. For this year the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act promises Maine $2,400 per student receiving special education services. However, the Federal Government will spend only slightly more than $702 per student--which means that Maine will receive $60 million less than it was promised. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the unmet mandate stands at an astounding $11 billion nationally. We can not continue to shift this burden to our local communities. We must meet the Federal commitment to help pay for special education and end this unfunded mandate. Last month, I met with about 75 superintendents and principals from northern and eastern Maine to discuss the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What was supposed to be a wide- ranging dialog about Federal funding under the ESEA immediately settled into a discussion about special education. They told me that in each of their schools and districts, meeting the special education mandate requires dollars that otherwise could be used for school construction, teacher salaries, new computers, and other effort to improve the performance of their students. They called on us to meet our promise to help pay for special education. They spoke with one voice in strong, unified support for more special education funding, not for new Federal programs. The Jeffords-Collins amendment would means an additional $155 million for Maine schools over the next five years. Mr. President, we need to meet our commitment to bear our fair share of special education costs. When faced with the siren's call for new Federal programs, we must keep in mind what our parents, teachers, and local administrators have told us. If we want to do something for the children of America, let us fund special education, and our schools will be able to hire their our own teachers and build their own schools. The best thing this Congress can do for education is to move toward fully funding the Federal Government's share of special education--not to stand in place as the President's budget would have us do. I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords-Collins amendment and give our states and local communities the financial help they have been promised and so desperately need. Let's finally keep the promise made more than 25 years ago.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has done a terrific job. I thank Senator Reid as well for yielding me time so I can discuss this very important matter. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Jeffords' amendment to finally start on the path toward paying the share of special education costs that the Federal Government promised to pay when the legislation was passed 25 years ago. During the last recess of the Senate, I met with more than 70 superintendents and principals from northern and eastern Maine to discuss education issues. Originally, my thought was to discuss the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the No. 1 issue on their minds was the escalating costs of meeting the needs of children with special needs, the costs of special education. If the U.S. Government kept the promise it made back in 1975, it would mean an additional $60 million to the schools in the State of Maine. That is money that would free up other money so that schools could meet their own needs--whether this is hiring more teachers, improving their libraries, upgrading their science labs or providing special professional development--whatever the need of that particular school and that particular community. If we take this step of starting to meet our obligations under the special education law, it will make a tremendous difference not only to the schools in Maine but to schools throughout our country. The Jeffords-Collins amendment would mean an additional $155 million to the schools of Maine over the next 5 years. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor. This has been one of my priorities since my election to the Senate. I know it is the No. 1 priority of the school districts in the State of Maine. I thank my colleagues for making the time available to me. If I have additional time, I yield it back to the chairman of the Budget Committee. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with 35 of my colleagues tonight to introduce the Home Health Payment Fairness Act to eliminate the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies that is currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1 of next year. The legislation we are introducing will provide a measure of financial relief for home health agencies across the country that are experiencing acute financial problems that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care to some of the most vulnerable senior citizens in our country. America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have enabled a growing number of our most frail and vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own home. Unfortunately, due to cutbacks in the Medicare program, home health agencies in my State and others are having a very difficult time providing services, particularly to elderly people with complex health needs. One has only to look at the statistics from my home State of Maine to see the impact of these very onerous budget cuts, as well as burdensome regulations imposed by the Clinton administration. In Maine, in just over 2 years' time, there has been a 30-percent reduction in home health visits, which has resulted in more than 7,470 senior citizens losing their home health services in my State. There has been a 26-percent reduction in the reimbursements that have been provided to home health agencies in Maine. Mr. President, this situation cannot continue. The home health industry has already made an important contribution to reducing the rate of growth in Medicare spending. In fact, the spending cuts have been far beyond what Congress intended and what the CBO estimated. In 1996, home health was the fastest growing component of Medicare spending. The program grew at an average annual rate of more than 25 percent from 1990 to 1997. As a consequence, the number of home health beneficiaries more than doubled and Medicare home health increased soared from $2.5 billion in 1989 to $17.8 billion in 1997. This rapid growth in home health spending understandably prompted Congress and the Administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were intended to slow this growth in spending and make the program more cost-effective and efficient. These measures, however, have produced cuts in home health spending far beyond what Congress intended. Home health spending dropped to $9.7 billion in FY 1999--just about half the 1997 amount. To cut payments by an additional 15 percent would put our already struggling home agencies at risk and would seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for millions of our nation's seniors. It is now clear that the savings goals set for home health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met, but far surpassed. According to the March 2000 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, Medicare home health payments fell by almost 35 percent in FY 1999, and this was on top of a 15 percent drop in FY 1998. In fact, the CBO cites this ``larger than anticipated reduction in the use of home health services'' as the primary reason that total Medicare spending dropped by one percent last year. The CBO now projects that the post-Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health will be about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is over four times the $16 billion that the CBO originally estimated for that time period and is a clear indication that the Medicare home health cutbacks have been far deeper and wide-reaching than Congress ever intended. Moreover, the financial problems that home health agencies have experienced have been exacerbated by a number of burdensome new regulatory requirements imposed by the Health Care Financing Administration, including the implementation of OASIS, the new outcome and assessment information data set; new requirements for surety bonds; IPS overpayment recoupment; and a new 15-minute increment reporting requirement. As a consequence of these payment cuts coupled with overly burdensome new regulatory requirements, cost-efficient home health agencies across the country have experienced acute financial difficulties and cash-flow problems, which have inhibited their ability to deliver much-needed care, particularly to the very Medicare beneficiaries who need it the most--individuals with diabetes, wound care patients, stroke patients, and other chronically ill individuals with complex care needs. Over 2,500 agencies--about one quarter of all home health agencies nationwide--have either closed or stopped serving Medicare patients. Others have laid off staff or declined to accept new patients with more serious health problems. In addition, according to a study by the Lewin Group for the American Hospital Association, these cutbacks have resulted in a 30.5 percent reduction in hospital-based home health services. The effect of these home health cuts has been particularly devastating in my state. The number of Medicare home health patients in Maine dropped from 48,740 in June of 1998 to 41,269 in June of 1999, a decline of 15 percent. This means that 7,471 fewer Maine seniors are receiving home health services. Moreover, there was a 30 percent drop in the number of visits, and a 26 percent cut in Medicare payments to home health agencies in Maine. Keep in mind that Maine's home health agencies have historically been prudent in their use of resources and were low-cost to begin with. Ultimately, cuts of this magnitude degrade patient care. The real losers in this situation are our nation's seniors--particularly those sicker Medicare patients with complex, chronic care needs who are already experiencing difficulty in getting the home care services they need. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act did provide a small measure of financial and regulatory relief for home health agencies. It did, for example, delay the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare home health payments for one year. I do not think that this legislation went far enough, however: this automatic reduction should be eliminated entirely. An additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments would ring the death knell for the low-cost, efficient agencies which are currently struggling to hang on and would further reduce our seniors' access to critical home care services. Moreover, we have already far surpassed the savings targets set by the Balanced Budget Act. Further cuts are unnecessary. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join with myself and Senators Bond, Baucus, Jeffords, Reed, Santorum, Abraham, Murray, Cochran, Feinstein, Hollings, Mikulski, Bingaman, Murkowski, Hutchison, Schumer, Torricelli, Edwards, Leahy, Enzi, Lugar, Cleland, Hagel, Snowe, Bennett, Gorton, Hutchinson, Helms, Allard, Lincoln, DeWine, Chafee, Ashcroft, Specter, Roberts, Brownback, and Voinovich in cosponsoring the Home Health Payment Fairness Act to eliminate this additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join with me in providing much needed relief to America's home health agencies. Ultimately, if we don't act, the losers will be our senior citizens who depend so much on this important health care service. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, for 5 minutes as in morning business to put in a bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support for S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television, legislation of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. Mr. President, this legislation is simply about equity. Should satellite customers in the rural Maine communities of Lovell and Greenville and Fort Fairfield have the right to receive the local broadcasts of stations in Portland, Bangor, and Presque Isle, Maine? Should they have the ability to receive their local news, emergency weather forecasts, information about school closures, and the wrap-up of the local school sports via satellite? My answer is yes, of course, they should. While Congress authorized the ability of local network stations to broadcast their local signals via satellite by passing the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act last November, current satellite capacity only allows the top 40 to 50 television markets to receive this unique service. Unfortunately, this excludes the Portland, Bangor, and Presque Isle, Maine, markets and the satellite customers within those markets who want to view local programming. This last year has been a particularly difficult and frustrating one for satellite customers. We took an important step in addressing many of the problems they and local broadcasters have experienced by passing the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. We are, however, lacking a final component. Providing a rural loan guarantee program that is technologically-neutral, fiscally responsible, and focused on underserved markets will encourage companies to bring important information access to my State's rural communities and lead us to a conclusion of this important issue. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Again, I appreciate the assistance of my good friends, Senators Lugar and Roberts, who chair the Agriculture Committee and Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness, respectively. A pilot program that could allow farmers to combine noncontiguous units under one policy and to receive premium discounts could be extremely beneficial to my State. I hope that we can strongly encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give Maine every consideration as a location for such a pilot program.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have heard from many Maine potato farmers that one barrier to their using the crop insurance program is the inability to insure the crops of a farm that may consist of several non-contiguous units under one policy. Therefore, I was pleased to see that The Risk Management for the Twenty-first Century Act authorizes pilot programs to allow farmers to receive premium discounts for using whole farm units or single crop units of insurance and to cross State and county boundaries to form insurable units. This provision has the potential to significantly help farmers in Maine and I appreciate your efforts to ensure its inclusion in the crop insurance bill. I hope, too, that you will make every effort to retain this provision in the bill that emerges form conference.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I request 10 minutes, if that is available.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I begin my remarks this morning by commending the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for his outstanding leadership in pulling together a plan to deal with the oil crisis. He has been very attentive and responsive to the concerns of those of us who represent Northeast States. He has pointed out, correctly, time and again that one reason we are in such a bind where we are experiencing this oil crisis is that this administration has had no plan, it has had no policy. Thus, we have been particularly vulnerable to the manipulation of our oil markets by the OPEC nations. I commend the Senator from Alaska for his leadership. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. During the past winter, in Maine, home heating oil prices have more than doubled from the level of the previous winter. I point out, we still have a lot of winter left in New England. It is difficult to remember, when we are in Washington and surrounded by the cherry blossoms that are in full bloom and the tulips that are coming up, that in my home State of Maine we still have a considerable amount of winter yet to go through. In fact, last weekend, when I was in Maine, in Aroostook County, the temperature was a very chilly zero degrees; and in southern Maine, in Portland, on Sunday morning the temperature was 9 degrees. The crisis, as far as the impact of home heating oil costs on my State--and on many New England States--has not yet eased. The crisis is very much still with us. Moreover, we are now seeing the increase in oil prices affecting the cost of gasoline. According to the latest American Automobile Association survey, gasoline prices in Maine now average a staggering $1.62 a gallon. In some parts of the State, such as Aroostook and Washington Counties, the prices are even higher. And there is no end in sight. The Department of Energy has predicted sharply higher prices for gasoline as the summer approaches. Again, this is a particular concern to my State of Maine. We are very dependent on the tourists who come to Maine to enjoy our beautiful scenery and outdoor recreation during the summer months. I fear that many of them will stay away if they are confronted with gasoline prices that approach, or perhaps even exceed, $2 a gallon. The reason behind these soaring prices is simple. OPEC's decision to engage in unfair and anticompetitive practices to constrict the supply of oil and drive up the prices is responsible, primarily, for the crisis we face. This cartel inflicts--and will continue to inflict-- economic hardship on the families and the businesses of the Northeast and throughout America. The results of the jump in oil prices may have been felt first in the Northeast, but they are rolling as thunder across America. Let's look more closely at the primary cause of the oil crisis. OPEC is a cartel of 11 oil-producing states that supply over 40 percent of the world's oil and possess over 77 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves. OPEC member countries have colluded to take some 6 percent of the world's oil supply off the market in order to maximize their profits. And the strategy is working. Although OPEC countries sold 5 percent less oil last year, their profits were up by more than 38 percent. Last October, I began warning the Clinton administration about OPEC's production squeeze and the detrimental impact the cartel would have on our economy. At that time, oil prices were already beginning to rise and U.S. inventories were falling. Throughout the winter, Mainers and all Americans who heat with oil have suffered from the highest prices in a decade. Gradually, the economic pain caused by OPEC has spread throughout the country. The entire Nation is suffering--and will continue to suffer--the results of record high fuel costs. Last fall, the administration, in response to the concerns Senator Schumer and I and other Members expressed, told us what it is still telling us: Just wait and see. Be patient. We will somehow increase production. We will convince OPEC to raise production to normal levels. We have waited and waited and waited. The cost of oil has gone from $20 to $25 to $30 to $34 a barrel. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has admitted that the ``Federal Government was not `prepared' for this crisis. When he was in Maine, he said they had been `caught napping'.'' That is an astonishing admission of a lack of leadership by this administration. The fact is, this administration has no plan, no policy, no approach for dealing with this crisis. It has no energy policy at all. The administration should act immediately to combat OPEC's manipulation of oil markets by using a tool that has proven effective in the past; that is, a measured release of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Along with Senator Schumer, I have repeatedly asked the administration to release some of the oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the marketplace. I have worked with the chairman to make sure it would be done in a way that did not in any way jeopardize our national security. It would not in any way drain the reserve, which has approximately 575 million barrels in its storages. This would ease the price. Last November, again, Senator Schumer and I introduced a bill making clear the President's authority to act. Time and again, we called upon the administration to take some action to provide us with relief. On March 2, we introduced legislation calling upon the administration to draw down the SPR in an economically feasible manner using what is known as swaps. A release from the SPR would have an immediate and dramatic impact on the price of oil. It would help break OPEC's resolve to maintain an iron grip on our Nation's oil supply. I will relate what has happened in the two past cases where we did have a measured release of oil from our reserves. In 1996, the administration sold oil from the SPR simply to raise revenue, and oil prices declined almost immediately by over 7 percent. That was in response to merely the announcement of a one-time sale of 12 million barrels. Previously, when President Bush tapped the reserves during the gulf war, prices dropped by 30 percent. In proposing that we release oil from our reserves, I am pleased to have the very strong support of the American Trucking Association. Perhaps no one has felt the pain of soaring oil prices more than our Nation's truckers. The jump in prices deeply harms them and, by extension, all American consumers and businesses. I have heard from a small Maine trucking company that is in dire straits. One operator of a trucking company in Ellsworth tells me that due to the high cost of diesel, many independent contractors with whom she contracts will simply not be able to stay in business. Potato farmers in northern Maine are concerned they are going to have increasing difficulty in shipping their crop because the high cost of diesel has made it economically infeasible for truckers to drive to Aroostook County. High diesel costs also hurt our lumber and paper industries. Everyone shares in the pain inflicted by OPEC. Record-high crude oil prices hurt all Americans--at the pump, on the farm, in the supermarket, at the airline ticket counter, and at home during cold nights. These exorbitant prices even hurt our kids. Recently a newspaper in my State reported that the high cost of fuel is straining school budgets in Maine. Several schools have canceled all field trips because they have already depleted their budget for gasoline, diesel, and oil costs for the year. I have been disappointed that the administration has failed to heed our call during the past several months. What makes the administration's failure to act even more perplexing is the fact some of the nations involved in the scheme to manipulate prices are supposedly our allies. They have depended heavily on American support in the past. These countries include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico. I am so frustrated in particular with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We rescued these countries; 147 Americans gave their lives in the cause of freeing Kuwait and protecting Saudi Arabia. I hope next week when the OPEC nation ministers meet they will decide to restore normal production levels. But we cannot wait. We have to keep the pressure on. We have to provide short-term and long-term relief. There are other steps we could take. We should suspend the 3.4- percent gas tax hike while protecting the highway trust fund, and we must make clear to the OPEC nations that we will not stand idly by. Again, I thank the chairman of the task force and of the committee for his excellent leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very critical issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight of HCFA's Settlement Policies: Did HCFA Give Favored Providers Sweetheart Deals?'' This hearing is part of the Subcommitttee's continuing examination of the Medicare program and will examine settlements between the Health Care Financing Administration (``HCFA'') and certain Medicare providers and whether these settlements conform to HCFA regulations. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact K. Lee Blalack II of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank you for your graciousness in allowing me to precede you on the Senate floor this afternoon. It is typical of my friend's graciousness and friendship. I appreciate it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans today are leading healthier and longer lives than ever before. By the year 2030, one-fifth of our American population will be age 65 or older. Given the demographics of the 21st century, it is clearly in our national interest to encourage people to stay in the workforce longer. Today, however, older Americans age 65 through 69 are currently discouraged from working since they lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over $17,000. I am, therefore, very pleased this week the Senate will consider H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, to eliminate the Social Security earnings test that unfairly penalizes senior citizens who need or want to keep working. The elimination of this penalty will be particularly helpful to women. Women frequently have interrupted work histories because they take time off to raise their families. Historically, unfortunately, they also earn less than men. As a result, women are twice as likely to retire in poverty as men. Many women do not have sufficient savings or a private pension, and they depend upon the money they earn to supplement their Social Security benefits in order to make ends meet. These low-income seniors are particularly hard hit by the earnings test, which amounts to a 33-percent tax on their earned income over and above what they are already paying in Federal, State, and Social Security payroll taxes. Moreover, the Social Security earnings penalty takes money away from seniors that is rightfully theirs. According to the Social Security Administration, 800,000 senior citizens sacrificed some of their benefits last year by exceeding the earnings limit. These were benefits they had earned through a lifetime of hard work in contributions to the Social Security system. Finally, this penalty is most burdensome for those seniors who have to work and depend upon their income for survival. More well-to-do seniors generally supplement their Social Security benefits with what we refer to as ``unearned income'' from savings and investments, none of which is affected by the current earnings limit. Earlier this month, in an overwhelming display of bipartisan cooperation, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to repeal this unfair penalty on our senior citizens. They voted to say no to discriminating against seniors and discouraging them from working. It is my hope the Senate will follow suit this week with another unanimous vote on this historic measure. Our Nation's seniors should be free to work without penalty. Older workers have the skills, the wisdom, and the judgment that all employers value. Given our tight labor market and our historically low rate of personal savings, it simply does not make sense for Washington to discourage the most experienced workers we have from remaining in the workforce when they want to do so. I hope all of our colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation before the end of the week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Dodd, Torricelli, and Hutchinson to introduce the Organ Procurement Organization Certification Act to improve the performance evaluation and certification process that the Health Care Financing Administration currently uses for organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Recent advantages in technology have dramatically increased the number of patients who could benefit from organ transplants. Unfortunately, however, while there has been some interest in the number of organ donors, the supply of organs in the United States has not kept pace with the growing number of transplant candidates, and the gap between transplant demand and organ supply continues to widen. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), there are now 68,220 patients in the United States on the waiting list for a transplant. Our nation's 60 organ procurement organizations (OPOs) play a critical role in procuring and placing organs and are therefore key to our efforts to increase the number and quality of organs available for transplant. They provide all of the services necessary in a particular geographic region for coordinating the identification of potential donors, requests for donation, and recovery and transport of organs. The professionals in the OPOs evaluate potential donors, discuss donation with family members, and arrange for the surgical removal of donated organs. They are also responsible for preserving the organs and making arrangements for their distribution according to national organ sharing policies. Finally, the OPOs provide information and education to medical professionals and the general public to encourage organ and tissue donation to increase the availability of organs for transplantation. According to a 1999 report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) entitled ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation: Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule'', a major impediment to greater accountability and improved performance on the part of OPOs is the current lack of a reliable and valid method for assessing donor potential and OPO performance. The HCFA's current certification process for OPOs sets an arbitrary, population-based performance standard for certifying OPOs based on donors per million of population in their service areas. It sets a standard for acceptable performance based on five criteria: donors recovered per million, kidneys recovered per million, kidneys transplanted per million, extrarenal organs (heart, liver, pancreas and lungs) recovered per million, and extrarenal organs transplanted per million. The HCFA assesses the OPOs' adherence to these standards every two years. Each OPO must meet at least 75 percent of the national mean for four of these five categories to be recertified as the OPO for a particular area and to receive Medicare and Medicaid payments. Without HCFA certification, an OPO cannot continue to operate. The GAO, the IOM, the Harvard School of Public Health and others all have criticized HCFA's use of this population-based standard to measure OPO performance. According to the GAO, ``HCFA's current performance standard does not accurately assess OPOs' ability to meet the goal of acquiring all usable organs because it is based on the total population, not the number of potential donors, within the OPOs' service areas.'' OPO service areas vary widely in the distribution of deaths by cause, underlying health conditions, age, and race. These variations can pose significant advantages or disadvantages to an OPO's ability to procure organs, and a major problem with HCFA's current performance assessment is that it does not account for these variations. An extremely effective OPO that is getting a high yield of organs from the potential donors in its service area may appear to be performing poorly because it has a disproportionate share of elderly people or a high rate of people infected with HIV or AIDS, which eliminates them for consideration as an organ donor. At the same time, an ineffective OPO may appear to be performing well because it is operating in a service area with a high proportion of potential donors. For example, organ donors typically die from head trauma and accidental injuries, and these rates can vary dramatically from region to region. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 1991, the number of drivers fatally injured in traffic accidents in Maine was 15.54 per 100,000 population. In Alabama, however, it was 29.56, giving the OPO serving that state a tremendous advantage over the New England Organ Bank, which serves Maine, but not for a very good reason! Use of this population-based method to evaluate OPO performance may well result in the decertification of OPOs that are actually excellent performers. Under HCFA's current regulatory practice, OPOs are decertified if they fail to meet the 75th percentile of the national means on 4 of the 5 performance areas. In this process, which resembles a game of musical chairs, it is a mathematical certainty that some OPOs will fail in each cycle, no matter how much they might individually improve. Moreover, unlike other HCFA certification programs, the certification process for OPOs lacks any provision for corrective action plans to remedy deficient performance and also lacks a clearly defined due process component for resolving conflicts. The current system therefore forces OPOs to compete on the basis of an imperfect grading system, with no guarantee of an opportunity for fair hearing based on their actual performance. This situation pressures many OPOs to focus on the certification process itself rather than on activities and methods to increase donation, undermining what should be the overriding goal of the program. Moreover, the current two-year cycle--which is shorter than other certification programs administered by HCFA--provides little opportunity to examine trends and even less incentive for OPOs to mount long-term interventions. The legislation we are introducing today has three major objectives. First, it imposes a moratorium on the current recertification process for OPOs and the use of population-based performance measurements. Under our bill, the certification of qualified OPOs will remain in place through January 1, 2002, for those OPOs that have been certified as a January 1, 2000, and that meet other qualification requirements apart from the current performance standards. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate new rules governing OPO recertification by January 1, 2002. These new rules are to rely on outcome and process performance measures based on evidence of organ donor potential and other relevant factors, and recertification for OPOs shall not be required until they are promulgated. Finally, the bill provides for the filing and approval of a corrective action plan by an OPO that fails to meet the standards, a grace period to permit corrective action, an opportunity to appeal a decertification to the Secretary on substantive and procedural grounds and a four-year certification cycle. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today makes much needed improvements in the flawed process that HCFA currently uses to certify and assess OPO performance, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. so the weekly party caucuses may meet. Upon reconvening, the Senate will begin consideration of the nominations of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez to be the U.S. circuit judges for the Ninth Circuit. Order of Procedure I now ask unanimous consent that the debate time between 2:15 p.m. and 5 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the Berzon and Paez nominations.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, by previous consent, at 5 p.m. the Senate will proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the Executive Calendar No. 423, the nomination of Julio Fuentes. Senators can therefore expect the first vote to occur at 5 p.m. today. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the St. Croix Island Heritage Act, legislation that will help develop a regional heritage center in Calais, ME, in time to commemorate an event of great historical and international significance: the 400th anniversary of one of the earliest settlements in North America, at St. Croix Island. I am pleased to have my senior colleague from Maine, Ms. Snowe, as a cosponsor of my legislation. Planning for the regional heritage center is well underway. The residents of the St. Croix River Valley and organizations such as the St. Croix Economic Alliance and the Sunrise County Economic Council have worked hard to move the project forward. They commissioned a consulting firm to evaluate the market potential of the heritage center and to prepare preliminary exhibit and operating plans. They secured planning and seed money from the U.S. Forest Service, the city of Calais, local businesses, and others. And they have hired a full-time project coordinator to oversee development of the heritage center. Now they need assistance from the National Park Service, assistance that this bill would provide. The regional center will preserve and chronicle the region's cultural, natural, and historical heritage. The Interior Department's role in the planning and development of the heritage center stems from the close proximity of the proposed site to St. Croix Island, the only international historic site in the National Park System. In 2004, the United States, Canada, and France will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the first settlement at St. Croix Island. We have only 4 more years to prepare for a celebration of this historic event. I have spoken before on the Senate floor about the historical significance of the settlement of St. Croix Island. It is a remarkable and little-known story that bears retelling. The story dates to the summer of 1604, when a French nobleman, accompanied by a courageous group of adventurers that included Samuel Champlain, landed on St. Croix Island and set about to construct a settlement. They cleared the island, planted crops, dug a well, and built houses, fortifications, and public buildings. In the process, they were aided by Native peoples who made temporary camps on the island. At the same time, Samuel Champlain undertook a number of reconnaissance missions from the island. On one, he found and named Mount Desert Island, now the home to Acadia National Park. By October of 1604, the settlement was ready. But the Maine winter was more than the seventy-nine settlers had bargained for. By winter's end, nearly half had died, and many others were seriously ill. The spring brought relief from the harsh weather. The colony was relocated to Port Royal in what is now Nova Scotia and, in 1608, Champlain and his fellow explorers founded Quebec. According to the National Park Service, the French settlement on St. Croix Island in 1604 and 1605 was the first and ``most ambitious attempt of its time to establish an enduring French presence in the `New World' '' and ``set a precedent for early French claims in New France.'' Many view the expedition that settled on St. Croix Island in 1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America. This rich and diverse culture spread across the continent, from Canada to Louisiana, where French-speaking Acadians came to be known as ``Cajuns.'' Mr. President, thousands of people attended the celebration that marked the 300th anniversary of the settlement of St. Croix Island. The consul general of France and the famous Civil War hero General Joshua Chamberlain were among those who spoke at the event. In four years, another century will have passed since the last commemoration, and we will celebrate St. Croix Island's 400th anniversary. There is much work to be done. In 1996, the U.S. National Park Service and Parks Canada agreed to ``conduct joint strategic planning for the international commemoration [of the St. Croix Island], with a special focus on the 400th anniversary of settlement in 2004.'' For its part, Parks Canada constructed an exhibit in New Brunswick overlooking St. Croix Island. The exhibit uses Champlain's first-hand accounts, period images, updated research, and custom artwork to tell the compelling story of the settlement. The U.S. National Park Service, on the other hand, still has a ways to go. In October 1998, the Park Service did complete a general management plan for the St. Croix Island International Historic Site. From a variety of alternatives, the Park Service settled on a plan that envisions an interpretive trail and ranger station at Red Beach, Maine and exhibits located in the regional heritage center up the road in Calais. The bill I introduce today directs the National Park Service to facilitate the development of the regional heritage center in time for the 400th anniversary of the St. Croix Island settlement. It empowers the Secretary of Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with State and local agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist in this effort and authorizes $2.5 million for this purpose. Mr. President, this bill authorizes and commits the National Park Service to follow a plan it has already endorsed to help commemorate a 1604 settlement of enormous historical significance. I believe that the 400th anniversary celebration and the heritage center in Calais will be a source of pride to all Americans of French ancestry. I am very pleased to see that the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee is on the floor. It is to his Committee that this legislation, I believe will be referred. I hope that it will be favorably reported and enacted this year. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the St. Croix Island Heritage Act, legislation that will help develop a regional heritage center in Calais, ME, in time to commemorate an event of great historical and international significance: the 400th anniversary of one of the earliest settlements in North America, at St. Croix Island. I am pleased to have my senior colleague from Maine, Ms. Snowe, as a cosponsor of my legislation. Planning for the regional heritage center is well underway. The residents of the St. Croix River Valley and organizations such as the St. Croix Economic Alliance and the Sunrise County Economic Council have worked hard to move the project forward. They commissioned a consulting firm to evaluate the market potential of the heritage center and to prepare preliminary exhibit and operating plans. They secured planning and seed money from the U.S. Forest Service, the city of Calais, local businesses, and others. And they have hired a full-time project coordinator to oversee development of the heritage center. Now they need assistance from the National Park Service, assistance that this bill would provide. The regional center will preserve and chronicle the region's cultural, natural, and historical heritage. The Interior Department's role in the planning and development of the heritage center stems from the close proximity of the proposed site to St. Croix Island, the only international historic site in the National Park System. In 2004, the United States, Canada, and France will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the first settlement at St. Croix Island. We have only 4 more years to prepare for a celebration of this historic event. I have spoken before on the Senate floor about the historical significance of the settlement of St. Croix Island. It is a remarkable and little-known story that bears retelling. The story dates to the summer of 1604, when a French nobleman, accompanied by a courageous group of adventurers that included Samuel Champlain, landed on St. Croix Island and set about to construct a settlement. They cleared the island, planted crops, dug a well, and built houses, fortifications, and public buildings. In the process, they were aided by Native peoples who made temporary camps on the island. At the same time, Samuel Champlain undertook a number of reconnaissance missions from the island. On one, he found and named Mount Desert Island, now the home to Acadia National Park. By October of 1604, the settlement was ready. But the Maine winter was more than the seventy-nine settlers had bargained for. By winter's end, nearly half had died, and many others were seriously ill. The spring brought relief from the harsh weather. The colony was relocated to Port Royal in what is now Nova Scotia and, in 1608, Champlain and his fellow explorers founded Quebec. According to the National Park Service, the French settlement on St. Croix Island in 1604 and 1605 was the first and ``most ambitious attempt of its time to establish an enduring French presence in the `New World' '' and ``set a precedent for early French claims in New France.'' Many view the expedition that settled on St. Croix Island in 1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America. This rich and diverse culture spread across the continent, from Canada to Louisiana, where French-speaking Acadians came to be known as ``Cajuns.'' Mr. President, thousands of people attended the celebration that marked the 300th anniversary of the settlement of St. Croix Island. The consul general of France and the famous Civil War hero General Joshua Chamberlain were among those who spoke at the event. In four years, another century will have passed since the last commemoration, and we will celebrate St. Croix Island's 400th anniversary. There is much work to be done. In 1996, the U.S. National Park Service and Parks Canada agreed to ``conduct joint strategic planning for the international commemoration [of the St. Croix Island], with a special focus on the 400th anniversary of settlement in 2004.'' For its part, Parks Canada constructed an exhibit in New Brunswick overlooking St. Croix Island. The exhibit uses Champlain's first-hand accounts, period images, updated research, and custom artwork to tell the compelling story of the settlement. The U.S. National Park Service, on the other hand, still has a ways to go. In October 1998, the Park Service did complete a general management plan for the St. Croix Island International Historic Site. From a variety of alternatives, the Park Service settled on a plan that envisions an interpretive trail and ranger station at Red Beach, Maine and exhibits located in the regional heritage center up the road in Calais. The bill I introduce today directs the National Park Service to facilitate the development of the regional heritage center in time for the 400th anniversary of the St. Croix Island settlement. It empowers the Secretary of Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with State and local agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist in this effort and authorizes $2.5 million for this purpose. Mr. President, this bill authorizes and commits the National Park Service to follow a plan it has already endorsed to help commemorate a 1604 settlement of enormous historical significance. I believe that the 400th anniversary celebration and the heritage center in Calais will be a source of pride to all Americans of French ancestry. I am very pleased to see that the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee is on the floor. It is to his Committee that this legislation, I believe will be referred. I hope that it will be favorably reported and enacted this year. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Schumer, to submit a senate concurrent resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress that the Administration should act immediately to combat the anticompetitive campaign OPEC has waged on the world's oil markets. Through this resolution, we call upon the President and the Secretary of Energy to defend America's interests through the immediate release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Snowe, Lieberman, Moynihan, Levin, Leahy, and Dodd who are original cosponsors of this important legislation. We are also pleased to have the strong support of the American Trucking Association which represents 9.6 million people employed in the American trucking industry and their families. Perhaps no one has felt the pain for soaring oil prices more then they. Today we ask the Administration to combat the unfair and anticompetitive practices of OPEC, and to ease the pain this cartel has inflicted--and will continue to inflict--on the people and businesses of the Northeast, the Midwest, and throughout America. Last fall, Senator Schumer and I began cautioning the Administration about OPEC's production squeeze and the impact the cartel would have on our economy. At that time oil prices were rising, and U.S. inventories were falling. Throughout the winter, Mainers, New Yorkers, and all Americans who heat with oil have suffered from the highest distillate prices in a decade. The entire nation has suffered--and will continue to suffer--through increased gasoline and diesel fuel costs. One year ago, the average retail price of a gallon of diesel fuel was 95.6 cents. Today, prices across the nation have skyrocketed. In my home state, diesel costs range from $1.60 in Bangor to $1.90 in Biddeford. This jump in prices deeply harms truckers and, by extension, all American consumers and businesses. The trucking industry consumes nearly 30 billion of gallons of diesel fuel a year. At today's prices, that means truckers across the nation must shoulder $15 billion more in fuel costs this year, compared to last. I have heard from small Maine trucking companies that are in dire straits. One owner of a trucking company in Ellsworth, Maine tells me that, due to particularly high fuel costs, many independent truckers she contracts with may not be able to stay in business. She says that owner-operators and small trucking companies cannot withstand the exorbitant price of diesel fuel for much longer and warns that immediate action is necessary. Potato farmers in northern Maine tell me they are having difficulty shipping their crop to market because the high cost of diesel has made it economically unfeasible to come to Aroostock County. I was struck by a sign I saw on a rig two weeks ago when truckers converged upon Washington, demanding action from our government--it read: ``if you eat it, drink or wear it, it probably got to you by truck.'' This catchy slogan underscores the importance of trucking to our country and our way of life. But everyone shares in the pain inflicted by OPEC. Yesterday, a barrel of crude oil closed at $30.43, a one hundred-fifty percent increase from one year ago. These high crude prices hurt all Americans--at the pump, on the farm, in the supermarket, at the airline ticket counter, and at home during cold winter nights. OPEC member-countries have colluded to take some 6% of the world's supply of oil off the markets in order to maximize profits. The strategy's is working--although OPEC countries sold 5% less oil in 1999, their profits were up 38%. OPEC's production squeeze has caused fuel reserves to shrink to historic lows. The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration--which is part of the Department of Energy--was quoted in The New York Times last week saying the fuel reserves in the Northeast were ``dangerously low,'' the lowest in 20 years, and that American's were ``skating on thin ice'' due to low fuel inventories. Indeed, we were told by the Energy Information Agency that distillate stocks in New England reached an all-time low last month. We have been disappointed that the Administration has failed to heed our call over the past several months. But even now, it is not too late. A release of oil from the SPR would have an immediate impact upon the price of oil and would help break OPEC's resolve to maintain an iron grip on our nation's supply. So today we offer a resolution calling upon the Administration to use the tools at its disposal to fight OPEC's unfair and dangerously harmful trade practices. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment which I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Kyl, Senator Coverdell, Senator Hatch, Senator Abraham, and Senator Bunning. I know the hour is late and I understand if I speak very shortly I will get more votes, so I will be very brief in describing my amendment. We have worked together to craft an amendment to help our public school teachers when they either pursue professional development at their own expense or purchase supplies for their classroom. Our amendment has two major provisions. First, it will allow teachers to deduct their professional development expenses without subjecting the deduction to the existing 2-percent floor that is in our Tax Code. Second, it will grant teachers a tax credit of up to $100 for books, supplies, and other equipment they purchase for their students. As Senator Kyl has noted, a study by the National Education Association indicates the average schoolteacher spends more than $400 a year on supplies and other materials for the classroom. Our amendment would reward teachers for undertaking these activities that are designed to make them better teachers or to provide better supplies for their students. It is an example of a way that we can say thank you to teachers who do so much for our children. While our amendment provides financial relief for our dedicated teachers, its real beneficiaries are our Nation's students. Other than involved parents, which we all know to be the most important component, a well-qualified and dedicated teacher is the single most important prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the close relationship between qualified teachers and successful students. Moreover, teachers themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and expanding their levels of competence. When I meet with teachers from Maine, they always tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this very worthy pursuit. The willingness of Maine's teachers to reach deep into their own pockets to fund their own professional development impresses me deeply. For example, an English teacher in Bangor, who serves on my Educational Policy Advisory Committee, told me of spending her own money to attend a curriculum conference. She then came back and shared that information with all of the English teachers in her department. She is not alone. She is typical of teachers who are willing to pay for their own professional development as well as to purchase supplies and materials to enhance their teaching. I greatly admire the many teachers who have voluntarily financed the additional education they need to improve their schools and to serve their students better. I greatly admire those teachers who reach into their own pockets to buy supplies, paints, books, all sorts of materials that are lacking in their classroom. We should reward those teachers. Let us change the Tax Code to recognize and reward their sacrifice and to encourage more teachers to take the courses they need or to help supplement the supplies in their classroom. I hope those changes in our Tax Code will encourage more teachers to undertake the formal course work in the subject matter they teach, or to complete graduate degrees in either a subject matter or in education, or to attend conferences to give them more ideas for innovative approaches to presenting the course work they teach in perhaps a more challenging manner. This amendment will reimburse teachers for just a small part of what they invest in our children's future. This money will be money well spent. Investing in education helps us to build one of the most important assets for our country's future; that is, a well-educated population. We need to ensure that our public schools have the very best teachers possible in order to bring out the very best in our students. Adopting this amendment is the first step toward that goal. It will help us in a small way recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make each and every day.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank all my colleagues for their excellent statements on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2854 and ask for its consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.