Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005. This bill would authorize $10 million per year for the next six years for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in partnership with universities across the Nation, to conduct research on abrupt climate change. The subject of climate change remains controversial. Nevertheless, I believe there is one issue on which almost everyone can agree: A great deal more scientific research is necessary in order to better understand the potential risk of abrupt climate change. Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. The challenges are made even more difficult with the recognition that the climate system is capable of dramatic and abrupt changes. Scientists have determined that past global temperatures have swung as much as 20 deg. F within a decade, accompanied by drought in some places and catastrophic floods in other places. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would also likely result in the redistribution of atmospheric moisture and rainfall, with substantial impact on the world's food supplies. Unfortunately, we have no satisfactory understanding of what triggers abrupt climate changes. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Administration's Strategic Climate Change Science Plan identify abrupt climate change as a key priority for additional research. In a 2002 report, the National Academy of Sciences stated that ``Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the Earth.'' Furthermore, the report stated that ``abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.'' The report noted that we're not doing nearly enough to identify even the threat of abrupt climate change. My bill would lay the framework and provide the funds for the United States to understand and address abrupt climate change. One reason this funding is so urgent is that we're rapidly losing one of the greatest sources of information: Ice cores from glaciers. The University of Maine's Climate Change Institute has one of the best abrupt climate change research programs in the world. The Climate Change Institute uses ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets around the world to make discoveries that change the way we think about climate change. Unfortunately, numerous glaciers around the world are melting; and when they go, we lose the very record that has given us so much of this critical climatic history. I recently had the opportunity to see for myself how scientists are able to use glaciers and ice sheets to understand climate change. In August, I traveled with Senators McCain, Sununu, and others to the northernmost community in the world. We visited Ny-Alesund on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. Located at 79 degrees north, Ny- Alesund lies well north of the Arctic Circle and is much closer to the North Pole than to Oslo, the country's capital. It has even served as a starting point for several polar expeditions, although thankfully, Senator McCain did not include an attempt to reach the North Pole on our itinerary. The scientists we met with told us that the global climate is changing more rapidly now than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further state that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40 percent thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In addition to disappearing sea-ice, Arctic glaciers are also rapidly retreating. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested. The melting of glaciers and sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, and the increases in sea levels resulting from warming are already beginning to cause environmental, social, and economic changes. Indeed, the social and economic disruption resulting from climate change is already evident in a number of regions throughout the Arctic, including Alaska. Some coastal communities in Alaska are facing increased exposure to storms and coastal erosion as a reduction in sea ice allows higher waves and storm surges to reach shore. In other areas, thawing ground is disrupting transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure. Some indigenous communities are already facing the prospect of relocating. If these changes were to be compounded with an abrupt climate change on the scale seen in our climatic history, the result could be devastating. I know that my colleague, the chairman of the Commerce Committee and senior Senator from Alaska, is very concerned about how Arctic climate changes are affecting his State. I know he recognizes that more research funding is necessary in order to understand future climate changes. I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and other members of the Commerce Committee to address this extremely important issue in the 109th Congress. I am grateful to my cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Snowe, Murray, Jeffords, and DeWine. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues over the coming months in order to address this important issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005. This bill would authorize $10 million per year for the next six years for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in partnership with universities across the Nation, to conduct research on abrupt climate change. The subject of climate change remains controversial. Nevertheless, I believe there is one issue on which almost everyone can agree: A great deal more scientific research is necessary in order to better understand the potential risk of abrupt climate change. Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. The challenges are made even more difficult with the recognition that the climate system is capable of dramatic and abrupt changes. Scientists have determined that past global temperatures have swung as much as 20 deg. F within a decade, accompanied by drought in some places and catastrophic floods in other places. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would also likely result in the redistribution of atmospheric moisture and rainfall, with substantial impact on the world's food supplies. Unfortunately, we have no satisfactory understanding of what triggers abrupt climate changes. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Administration's Strategic Climate Change Science Plan identify abrupt climate change as a key priority for additional research. In a 2002 report, the National Academy of Sciences stated that ``Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the Earth.'' Furthermore, the report stated that ``abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.'' The report noted that we're not doing nearly enough to identify even the threat of abrupt climate change. My bill would lay the framework and provide the funds for the United States to understand and address abrupt climate change. One reason this funding is so urgent is that we're rapidly losing one of the greatest sources of information: Ice cores from glaciers. The University of Maine's Climate Change Institute has one of the best abrupt climate change research programs in the world. The Climate Change Institute uses ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets around the world to make discoveries that change the way we think about climate change. Unfortunately, numerous glaciers around the world are melting; and when they go, we lose the very record that has given us so much of this critical climatic history. I recently had the opportunity to see for myself how scientists are able to use glaciers and ice sheets to understand climate change. In August, I traveled with Senators McCain, Sununu, and others to the northernmost community in the world. We visited Ny-Alesund on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. Located at 79 degrees north, Ny- Alesund lies well north of the Arctic Circle and is much closer to the North Pole than to Oslo, the country's capital. It has even served as a starting point for several polar expeditions, although thankfully, Senator McCain did not include an attempt to reach the North Pole on our itinerary. The scientists we met with told us that the global climate is changing more rapidly now than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further state that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40 percent thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In addition to disappearing sea-ice, Arctic glaciers are also rapidly retreating. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested. The melting of glaciers and sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, and the increases in sea levels resulting from warming are already beginning to cause environmental, social, and economic changes. Indeed, the social and economic disruption resulting from climate change is already evident in a number of regions throughout the Arctic, including Alaska. Some coastal communities in Alaska are facing increased exposure to storms and coastal erosion as a reduction in sea ice allows higher waves and storm surges to reach shore. In other areas, thawing ground is disrupting transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure. Some indigenous communities are already facing the prospect of relocating. If these changes were to be compounded with an abrupt climate change on the scale seen in our climatic history, the result could be devastating. I know that my colleague, the chairman of the Commerce Committee and senior Senator from Alaska, is very concerned about how Arctic climate changes are affecting his State. I know he recognizes that more research funding is necessary in order to understand future climate changes. I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and other members of the Commerce Committee to address this extremely important issue in the 109th Congress. I am grateful to my cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Snowe, Murray, Jeffords, and DeWine. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues over the coming months in order to address this important issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, President Bush made an excellent choice in nominating Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's next Secretary of State. She has both the professional experience and the personal integrity to make a great Secretary of State. I cannot think of a candidate more qualified to be Secretary of State than Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Rice's experience and expertise are truly multi-facted. She is a distinguished public servant and has led one of our country's most distinguished universities. She has 25 years of experience in foreign policy, having served three Presidents as a key advisor. She has led the President's national security team with strength and expertise. A short list of her many accomplishments include developing six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program, helping to design the President's landmark emergency AIDS relief package, and strengthening relations with Russia and China. In her capacity as National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice has developed personal working relationships with international leaders and governments that will enable her to nurture alliances and conduct effective diplomacy around the world. She was instrumental in developing the administration's response to 9/11 and a new framework for United States policy in the Middle East. Most important, Condoleezza Rice has the trust and confidence of the President. She has served the President as a loyal and trusted advisor. When she speaks to foreign leaders as Secretary of State, they will know that Dr. Rice is speaking on behalf of the President. I have had the honor of working closely with Dr. Rice on many occasions over the past 4 years. In particular, Dr. Rice's support was extremely helpful to me and to my colleague Senator Lieberman as we undertook the Herculean task of reforming our intelligence community in the last Congress. Dr. Rice helped us overcome the obstacles we faced to ensure the bill became law, and for that, she has my gratitude. Having a strong foreign policy vision is critical to success in the war on terrorism. Condoleezza Rice is the right person for the job. Dr. Rice will make an outstanding Secretary of State, and I look forward to working with her in the coming years.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman in introducing the Clean Power Act of 2005. This bill closes the loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 years. Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all but a handful of States. It also has one of the lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide. Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental commitment of both its citizens and industries, Maine still suffers from air pollution. Every freshwater lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a State mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, one of our most beautiful national parks, experiences days in which visibility is obscured by smog. Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired powerplants that exploit loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal- fired powerplants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the Nation. A single coal-fired powerplant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine combined. As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost all powerplants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted by these powerplants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into our lakes and streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment. A single powerplant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single year. That's equivalent to incinerating over one million mercury thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero powerplant emissions of mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by 90 percent. Powerplants are also one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In fact, powerplants account for 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists believe are the primary cause of man-made global warming. I recently had the opportunity to view firsthand some of the dramatic impacts of global warming. In August, I traveled with Senator McCain and several other Senators to the northernmost community in the world. We visited Ny-Alesund on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. Located at 79 deg.N, Ny-Alesund lies well north of the Arctic Circle and is much closer to the North Pole than to Oslo, the country's capital. It has even served as a starting point for several polar expeditions. Scientists tell us that the global climate is changing more rapidly than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further state that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40% thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In addition to disappearing sea-ice, Arctic glaciers are also rapidly retreating. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested. The Clean Power Act takes an important step in addressing global warming by reducing powerplant emissions of carbon dioxide to 2000 levels by the year 2010. Although doing so will not solve the problem of global warming, it is an important first step. In light of the rapid warming in the Arctic and the significance that this warming portends for the rest of the planet, reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a step that we can no longer afford to put off. I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be considering clean air legislation in the 109th Congress. The Jeffords-Collins-Lieberman bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious proposal, and it provides those benefits sooner. I believe it is time to stop acid rain, free our lakes from mercury pollution, reduce global warming, and eliminate the smog that drifts in to obscure Maine skies and jeopardize our health. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Jeffords and Senator Lieberman in introducing the Clean Power Act of 2005. This bill closes the loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 years. Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all but a handful of States. It also has one of the lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide. Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental commitment of both its citizens and industries, Maine still suffers from air pollution. Every freshwater lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a State mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, one of our most beautiful national parks, experiences days in which visibility is obscured by smog. Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired powerplants that exploit loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal- fired powerplants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the Nation. A single coal-fired powerplant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine combined. As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost all powerplants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted by these powerplants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into our lakes and streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment. A single powerplant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single year. That's equivalent to incinerating over one million mercury thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero powerplant emissions of mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by 90 percent. Powerplants are also one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In fact, powerplants account for 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists believe are the primary cause of man-made global warming. I recently had the opportunity to view firsthand some of the dramatic impacts of global warming. In August, I traveled with Senator McCain and several other Senators to the northernmost community in the world. We visited Ny-Alesund on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. Located at 79 deg.N, Ny-Alesund lies well north of the Arctic Circle and is much closer to the North Pole than to Oslo, the country's capital. It has even served as a starting point for several polar expeditions. Scientists tell us that the global climate is changing more rapidly than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further state that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40% thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In addition to disappearing sea-ice, Arctic glaciers are also rapidly retreating. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested. The Clean Power Act takes an important step in addressing global warming by reducing powerplant emissions of carbon dioxide to 2000 levels by the year 2010. Although doing so will not solve the problem of global warming, it is an important first step. In light of the rapid warming in the Arctic and the significance that this warming portends for the rest of the planet, reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a step that we can no longer afford to put off. I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be considering clean air legislation in the 109th Congress. The Jeffords-Collins-Lieberman bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious proposal, and it provides those benefits sooner. I believe it is time to stop acid rain, free our lakes from mercury pollution, reduce global warming, and eliminate the smog that drifts in to obscure Maine skies and jeopardize our health. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I rise with my good friend Senator Carper to offer the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act in order to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. Three years ago, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. The decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated to whom were left for another day. That day has come. During the 108th Congress, Senator Carper and I introduced similar legislation to more than double the proportion of homeland Security funding distributed based on risk, while also helping all States achieve a baseline level of preparedness and an ability to respond. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held three hearings at which first responders, State and local officials, and Secretary Ridge all testified that the grant distribution system needs fixing. The 9/11 Commission also urged that the system be changed. It is therefore time for Congress to finally address this critical issue. The bill that we introduce today is identical to legislation that passed the Senate by voice-vote as an amendment to the Intelligence reform bill at the end of the last Congress. That measure was supported by Senators from big States--like Michigan and Ohio--and small States like Maine, Delaware and Connecticut. The wide breadth of support in the Senate is indicative of the fact that this bill takes a balanced approach to homeland security funding. It recognizes that threat-based funding is a critical part of homeland security funding. It also recognizes that first responders in every State and territory stand at the front lines of securing the homeland. This legislation will also coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. This clearinghouse will improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds. Establishment of these programs will mean first responders can spend more time training to save lives and less-time filling out paper work. The inflexible structure of past homeland security funding, along with shifting federal requirements and increasing amounts of paperwork, poses a number of challenges to State and local governments as they attempt to provide these funds to first responders. The legislation would provide greater flexibility in the use of those unspent funds. It would give the Department of Homeland Security flexibility to allow States, via a wavier from the Secretary, to use funds from one category, such as training, for another purpose, such as purchasing equipment. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will act promptly to mark-up and report this important measure to establish a streamlined, efficient, and fair method for homeland security funds to get into the hands of first responders.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I rise with my good friend Senator Carper to offer the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act in order to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. Three years ago, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. The decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated to whom were left for another day. That day has come. During the 108th Congress, Senator Carper and I introduced similar legislation to more than double the proportion of homeland Security funding distributed based on risk, while also helping all States achieve a baseline level of preparedness and an ability to respond. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held three hearings at which first responders, State and local officials, and Secretary Ridge all testified that the grant distribution system needs fixing. The 9/11 Commission also urged that the system be changed. It is therefore time for Congress to finally address this critical issue. The bill that we introduce today is identical to legislation that passed the Senate by voice-vote as an amendment to the Intelligence reform bill at the end of the last Congress. That measure was supported by Senators from big States--like Michigan and Ohio--and small States like Maine, Delaware and Connecticut. The wide breadth of support in the Senate is indicative of the fact that this bill takes a balanced approach to homeland security funding. It recognizes that threat-based funding is a critical part of homeland security funding. It also recognizes that first responders in every State and territory stand at the front lines of securing the homeland. This legislation will also coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. This clearinghouse will improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds. Establishment of these programs will mean first responders can spend more time training to save lives and less-time filling out paper work. The inflexible structure of past homeland security funding, along with shifting federal requirements and increasing amounts of paperwork, poses a number of challenges to State and local governments as they attempt to provide these funds to first responders. The legislation would provide greater flexibility in the use of those unspent funds. It would give the Department of Homeland Security flexibility to allow States, via a wavier from the Secretary, to use funds from one category, such as training, for another purpose, such as purchasing equipment. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will act promptly to mark-up and report this important measure to establish a streamlined, efficient, and fair method for homeland security funds to get into the hands of first responders.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the world pauses this week to observe the 60th anniversary of an event that calls for the deepest solemnity and reflection. In early 1945, as American and British armies closed in on the Third Reich from the west, Soviet forces were on the march through Poland. On January 27, they came to a place called Auschwitz. In the Nazi death industry, Auschwitz was its most productive factory. It is estimated that some one and a half million were murdered there. The victims were Poles, Slavs, Russians, Gypsies, but the majority were Jews. They died from disease, starvation, exposure and exhaustion, on the gallows and in front of the firing squads, but mostly they were marched into the gas chambers. From the camp's establishment in 1940 until its liberation, the ovens of Auschwitz operated around the clock, their smokestacks spewing the stench of inhumanity across the countryside. The Holocaust is a story of incomprehensible inhumanity, of an act of enormity that passed all moral bounds and entered the realm of pure evil. It also, however, is a story of incredible heroism, of men and women who risked their lives, many who sacrificed their lives, for others--not just family and friends, but often total strangers. Some of these heroes are well known to us: Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schlindler, to name just two. Some are less known, but equally deserving of mankind's gratitude. The American journalist Varian Fry, the beneficiary of a privileged childhood and an Ivy League education, risked his life repeatedly spiriting 2,000 Jews out of occupied France through the network he created of black-market funds, forged documents and secret escape routes. In 1941, in retaliation for an escape by others, a group of Auschwitz prisoners was lined up before a firing squad. At the last moment, the Roman Catholic Priest Maximillian Kolbe voluntarily stepped forward to take a father's place. The names of some heroes will never be known to us. In the weeks before the liberation, the Nazis began dismantling the machinery of death at Auschwitz in order to hide their crimes. The gas chambers and crematoria were dynamited, the mass graves were disguised, and the infamous March of Death began. Nearly 60,000 prisoners, already weakened by hunger and illness, were driven on foot across the harsh winter countryside to camps within the Reich. The penalty for failure to keep up was summary execution. That also was the penalty for the people who offered food, water, and--whenever the opportunity arose--escape when this sorrowful parade passed through their villages. One survivor of the March of Death, Jan Wygas, tells of a villager who approached his column of prisoners with a bottle of water: ``Let them drink,'' she said in German to the SS guards. ``They are people, too.'' She gave the water to one of the prisoners. The SS man yelled at her to move back. As she turned to walk away, he shot her in the back of the head. I saw this with my own eyes. And yet, despite this brutality heaped on top of brutality, the people of the villages continued to offer aid, in Poland, in Silesia, even in Germany itself. Indeed, there are stories of those within the regime who resisted in whatever way they could. In his inspiring Holocaust memoir, ``Anton the Dove Fancier,'' Bernard Gotfryd tells of the time in 1944 when he was sent as a slave laborer to a German aircraft plant. Like his co- workers, Gotfryd did his best to be the worst worker possible, turning out defective parts and causing his machine to break down constantly. His stern German supervisor, known only as Herr Gruber, seemed not to notice this widespread incompetence, despite being under constant pressure to increase production. Once, Gotfryd sprained his ankle so severely he could not walk and could barely stand. In most cases, this disability would have earned a prisoner a spot on a train to a death camp. Again, Herr Gruber seemed not to notice. In the summer of 1944, Gotfryd discovered a treasure in the pocket of his work overalls: a sausage and a slab of real bread wrapped in newspaper. The rare and delicious food nourished his body. The newspaper nourished his soul, for it told of the Allied invasion of Normandy. The meaning of this message was to hold on, salvation was on the way. Gotfryd knew the messenger could only have been Herr Gruber. From where does this courage, this compassion, this self-sacrifice for total strangers come? None of us can say with certainty, but we all are blessed by its presence. On the other hand, the source of the hatred that led one of Europe's greatest powers to enact blatantly discriminatory laws, then to revel in a night of shattered windows, and finally to commit mass murder is known to us all too well. It is that particularly virulent and persistent form of mindless bigotry called anti-Semitism. One would think that the stories of Holocaust survivors, the irrefutable evidence before our eyes for the last 60 years, the memorials at such places as Auschwitz, and the debt we owe 6 million victims would be more than enough to eradicate this scourge. Tragically, Mr. President, that is not the case. Earlier this month, our State Department released a Report on Global Anti-Semitism. This report is the result of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I am proud to have been a co-sponsor. To say that the findings of this report are discouraging is a gross understatement. In country after country around the world, there has been a sharp increase in both the frequency and severity of anti- Semitic incidents in the first years of the 21st Century. Clearly, the lessons of the first half of the 20th are in danger of being forgotten. These incidents are not just the random vandalism of Jewish cemeteries or synagogues, or the occasional incident of harassment or assault, and the perpetrators are not just neo-Nazis or skinheads on the fringe of society. The new strain of this disease combines ancient anti-Jewish prejudice with a new demonization of the State of Israel and unbridled anti-Americanism, replete with Nazi comparisons and symbolism. In this new anti-Semitism, the extreme right and the extreme left have gone around the bend so far that they now have joined forces. We see evidence of this new anti-Semitism all around us. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is cited with increasing frequency in the Middle East press, instead of being consigned, along with its ideological sequel, Mein Kampf, to the ash heap of literary history. In some areas of Europe, the swastika replaces the letter ``s'' in anti- Israel and anti-American posters, bumper stickers and buttons. There is the absurd rumor that Jews in New York City had advance warning of the September 11 attacks. The Holocaust itself, when not being denied, is at least being diminished. The answer is not to silence these despicable ideas but to respond to them. We all have an obligation to history and to humanity to speak out, loudly and without exception, to this perversion of the truth and this degradation of civilization. Julia Skalina is an Auschwitz survivor, a native of Czechoslovakia who now lives in my home State, in the city of Portland. She is a frequent speaker at schools in Maine. These are her words: ``I learned what hatred can do, what people driven by hatred can do. I wish any future generation should never have to live through what we lived through.'' That wish will come true only if we--all of us--make it so. The horror of the Holocaust and the magnificence of the human spirit that it revealed demand this of us.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the first piece of legislation that I will sponsor in the 109th Congress--a resolution calling on the Senate to strengthen the Pell grant program so that more families can afford higher education. The Pell grant program is the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education funded by the Federal Government. It provides grants to students based on their level of financial need to support their studies at the institutions they have chosen to attend. For this fiscal year, the Pell program is funded at $12.8 billion and is estimated to serve more than 5.3 million students. I am pleased to have Senator Feingold and Senator Coleman joining me in this bipartisan effort to marshal additional Federal resources for the Pell program. They each have been a leader in the effort to expand access to higher education. Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, it is still the case that one of the most determinative factors of whether students will pursue higher education is their family income. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less that $25,000. Even more unsettling are studies demonstrating the negative effect of unmet financial need on college attendance for even the most academically prepared students. Among the most highly qualified high school students, those from low-income families were 43 percent less likely to attend college than their wealthier counterparts. To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has wisely invested in a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. This program was designed as the cornerstone of Federal student assistance. Unfortunately, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has been significantly eroded in recent years, forcing students to rely increasingly on loans to finance their higher education. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers less than half of these costs, forcing students to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt. On average, students from the University of Maine graduate with approximately $18,000 in debt from Federal student loans alone, and this reflects national trends. As startling as this figure is, it does not include additional indebtedness that many students incur through private loans or credit card debt to finance their education. The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans bring other negative consequences. The staggering amount of loans can force some students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. According to the College Board, low-income families are significantly less willing, by almost 50 percent, to finance a college education through borrowed money than their wealthier counterparts. That does not surprise me. Many working families in Maine are committed to living within their means. Understandably, they are extremely wary of the staggering amount of debt that is now required to finance a college education. I also know this to be true from my experiences as a college administrator at Husson College in Maine. At Husson, 85 to 90 percent of students currently receive some sort of Federal financial aid, and approximately 60 percent of students receive Pell grants. As Linda Conant, the financial aid director at Husson told me, ``You cannot imagine how difficult it is to sit with a family and to explain to them the amount of loans that are needed to finance a post-secondary degree. It scares them. That is why Pell grant aid is so important for low-income families. For these families, loans don't always work, but Pell does.'' I also heard from Judy Kenney from Northern Maine about the importance of Pell grants. Judy lives in Castle Hill, not far from my home town of Caribou. Her daughter and son both were able to attend college with the help of Pell grants. As she told me, ``At the time, my husband Maylen was farming and having a rough go of it and I was a teacher and didn't make much. But the Pell grants my children received made it possible for them to graduate, one from the University of New England and one from Thomas College. Without these grants, they couldn't have finished and now they are making good wages and paying taxes!'' Judy couldn't be more right on both counts. Not only can the typical bachelor's degree recipient expect to earn about 73 percent more over a lifetime than a high school graduate, they also typically contribute 100 percent more in Federal income taxes than the average high school graduate. So this is truly a Federal investment that pays for itself over the long run. We also know that having a well-educated workforce is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that over the next 10 years, there will be significant growth in jobs requiring at least some post- secondary education. So increasingly, higher education is going to be necessary to ensure employability and to prepare Americans to participate in tomorrow's economy. Pell grants make the difference in whether students have access to higher education, and a chance to participate fully in the American dream. That is why today I am introducing a resolution calling on the Senate to begin restoring the value of the Pell grant program. This resolution calls on the Senate to raise the Pell maximum grant award to $4,500, a $450 increase in a single year. This increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded for 4 straight years--at $4,050 for the past 3 years and only a $50 increase in FY 2002. During these 4 years, think of the students who might have entered college and graduated with a degree, if only they had received additional Pell grant aid. Pell grants are targeted to the neediest of students--recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. An additional $450 in Pell grant aid may very well be the deciding factor on whether these students can pursue their college dreams. The resolution also calls on the Senate to amend the Higher Education Act to provide higher authorization levels for the Pell maximum grant that would allow for a doubling of the maximum grant to $9,000 over the next 5 years. This is an ambitious goal but a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings. As my colleagues know, the Higher Education Act is expected to be reauthorized this year. As the Senate HELP Committee considers the reauthorization, it is my hope that this resolution will prompt a discussion about the need for the maximum grant to grow. I know that my good friends Senator Enzi, the new chairman of the Senate HELP Committee; Senator Kennedy, the ranking member; Senator Alexander, the chairman of the new Education and Early Childhood Development Subcommittee; and his Democratic counterpart will all work hard with other committee members to produce a strong reauthorization bill. I look forward to working with them further; they are all champions of ensuring greater access to quality education for all Americans, regardless of their financial means. The President also has recently announced his intention to include a proposal in his 2006 budget request to eliminate the Pell shortfall and to provide an increase in the maximum grant of $100 for each of the next 5 years. I commend the President for focusing on Pell grants, and I hope that we can work together to provide a more substantial increase for the maximum grant for the upcoming year. An increase of approximately $100 for each of the next 5 years will not be enough to increase the purchasing power of Pell grants and will not keep pace with inflation or rising tuition costs. For 2004-2005, the average costs of tuition and fees for a public, 4-year institution rose by over 10 percent. I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter of support for my legislation printed in the Record. This letter is from the Student Aid Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organizations representing students, colleges and universities. Founded by the American Council on Education and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Student Aid Alliance includes members such as the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, to name just a few. I am pleased to have their support. Mr. President, now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $4,500 for the upcoming award year. The Pell grant program is the foundation of making good on the American promise of access to higher education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his courtesy. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 8 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I had requested 10 minutes to introduce a bill at the conclusion of the tributes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee be given floor privileges during consideration of the intelligence reform conference report.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent floor privileges be extended to Deborah Barger, a CMA detailee in my office, for the duration of today's consideration of S. 2845.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank all of my colleagues for their help and support.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are on the verge of voting on historic legislation, landmark legislation that will reform our intelligence structure to allow us to better fight the war against terrorism and to counter future security threats. We will be taking a structure that is characterized by stovepipes, by a lack of sharing of information, that was so indicated in the 9/11 Commission Report as being a major cause of intelligence failures. The 9/11 Commission, over and over again, described the good people in our Government straining against structures that did not allow them to communicate effectively vital information; thus, no one assembled the pieces of the puzzle that might have allowed us to detect the hijackers' plot against our country. We have reorganized the intelligence agencies into a new structure where one person clearly will be accountable and responsible. The new Director of National Intelligence will be able to marshall the resources we need to counter the threat to our citizens. We have a National Counterterrorism Center, a National Counterproliferation Center designed to bring together analysts from all the agencies so they can pool their talents, analyze the intelligence, and produce better informed reports. This legislation will help make America more secure, and that is what this entire debate is all about. As my colleague, Senator Lieberman, has eloquently stated: The status quo failed us. Our bill may not be perfect. As the Presiding Officer indicated, no bill is. But it represents an enormous improvement over the status quo. We cannot turn away from the intelligence failures that have cost the lives of thousands of American citizens. We have to act. I am very proud that the Senate today will approve historic legislation that will make our country more secure. Mr. President, I know Senator Frist plans to come down and speak right before the vote, and he has arrived on cue. I do want to take this opportunity to request the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me make a brief comment in response to the recent discussion on the chain of command language. First, I am very pleased we were able to reach agreement with the chairman of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee on this language. Since I did not see the documents that the chairman put into the Record, I state very clearly for the record that nothing in the final language in this bill in any way weakened the authority of the new National Intelligence Director. In fact, the Director of National Intelligence will have significant budgetary and other authorities and that makes sense. We do not want to create just another layer of bureaucracy. We do not want to create a figurehead. We want to empower this individual with the authority to be able to marshal the resources to counter the very serious threats we face both today and in the future. In my judgment, nothing in this bill has ever hindered military operations or readiness, but I am pleased we were able to draft some additional language that has provided some comfort to those who were concerned. All Members have our first priority to the brave men and women who are fighting on the front lines of freedom. That is why this bill was very carefully drafted to keep tactical and joint military intelligence programs under the exclusive control of the Pentagon but to make sure those national assets which serve multiple customers--including the President's National Security Council, our covert agents in the CIA, as well as our military--to ensure that those assets are controlled by the Director of National Intelligence just as today they are controlled by the Director of the CIA in his role as head of the intelligence community. I am told by those who have worked entire careers with the CIA that the Department of Defense has always been very happy with the relationship that allows a priorities committee to work out and resolve any conflicts in the use of these national assets. Certainly, this language and this bill as a whole, the reorganization as a whole, will improve the quality of intelligence that is provided to our troops, as well as making civilians at home safer. That is our goal. That is what this legislation achieves. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has arrived. He has been a stalwart proponent of reform. He has worked very closely with Senator Lieberman and me. I am very grateful for his leadership and support.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do want to clarify apart from this issue that I believe there was an informal--I thought we had made it formal--understanding that Senator Stevens would follow Senator Byrd's remarks, and Senator Warner would follow Senator Stevens' remarks. But all the Senator from Florida is trying to do--and I very much appreciate his endorsement of the bill--is to yield back the remainder of Senator Byrd's time at the request of Senator Byrd.

Ms. COLLINS. I will yield at the appropriate time 5 of my remaining minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also want to list the conferees on this bill. Contrary, perhaps, to the implications of what we have just heard, this was an extraordinarily open conference, where Democrats and Republicans negotiated side by side in every single meeting. It was a bipartisan effort. Senators Lott, Roberts, Voinovich, Coleman, Sununu, DeWine, Levin, Rockefeller, Durbin, Graham of Florida, and Senator Lautenberg were the Senate conferees on this important bill. I thank each of them personally for how hard they worked. Each of them contributed greatly to the final product, and I am very grateful for their support. I wish to also respond to the concept that somehow this issue was rushed. The fact is there have been numerous reports and commissions that have urged intelligence reform going back to 1954. Over and over again, problems were identified in our intelligence structure, even as our country became more vulnerable to asymmetric threats, such as terrorist groups. The 9/11 Commission, which did, in my view, an outstanding job, reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents, interviewed more than 1,200 individuals, held 19 days of hearings, and took public testimony from 160 witnesses. Congress held 44 hearings on the 9/11 Commission's report and recommendations. The Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am honored to chair, alone held 8 days of hearings and marked up this legislation for 2 full days. We were on the Senate floor for nearly 2 weeks. We considered hundreds of amendments to this bill. The conference on the bill lasted nearly 2 months and received a great deal of attention. I note that we have made substantive changes to only two provisions in the conference report since November 20 when the conference agreement almost came to the Senate floor. The November 20 language was widely circulated. It included being provided to the staff of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I assert that this was an extraordinarily inclusive process, and all the Members of the Senate have had ample time to review the conference report since, with just two exceptions, which have been highly publicized. It is the same language, for the most part, except for technical changes, as we reported it on November 20. I wanted to make those points. I know there are other Members desiring to speak. I will yield the floor, but I reserve the remainder of my time. Finally, Mr. President, I note that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, wishes to speak in favor of the conference report. I am prepared to yield him some of my time, but I am not certain how much time I have remaining. If I could be informed by the Presiding Officer as to how much time I have remaining, that would be helpful.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of my staff members who worked so hard on this bill over so many months be printed in the Record at this point.

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank my friend for working with me on these very important provisions. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, during his joint address to Congress, the President called on all Americans to ``uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.'' Indeed, as we improve government to better secure our Nation against future attacks, we must at the same time protect those American values that define our free society. These freedoms and values are what define us as Americans and what defines our Nation. Since the inception of our Nation, there has been much sacrifice in order for us to have the freedoms we enjoy today. These liberties are what have been entrusted to us to protect. That is why, as we protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks, we also must ensure that we do no trample on the very values that the terrorists seek to destroy.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague for his clear explanation. Just as important to the other authorities provided to the board is ensuring some transparency of the activities of the board. Transparency helps to give confidence to the American people that the protection of their civil liberties and privacy is being addressed as we take actions to further protect our Nation from terrorism. To that end, the board is to report to Congress at least annually on its activities, and may do so more frequently, as would be expected should the board complete an important investigation or otherwise make findings or recommendations of which Congress would wish to be apprised. The bill requires that the board's reports to Congress be unclassified to the greatest extent possible, in order to facilitate public discussion of the board's activities; where it is necessary to include classified information in the reports, it is to be included in a separate classified annex. Whether and when to release reports directly to the public or to otherwise engage in activities that directly involve and inform the public is left to the discretion of the board, but we believe that given the public importance of the issues entrusted to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, openness is called for and will ultimately foster public trust that the government is appropriately protecting privacy and civil liberties as it continues to vigorously fight the war on terror. Also intended to foster this public trust is the fact that, while the board is exempted from the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act because, as a permanent, ongoing entity, it does not fit comfortably into the mold of the usual subjects of that act, the board is expressly subject to the Freedom of Information Act, like any other agency.

Ms. COLLINS. Specifically, the board established in the bill is to be made up of five members, who are to be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the President. Two of the five members--the chairman and vice-chairman--are also required to be Senate-confirmed. To help ensure an independent and effective board, all of the members are to come from outside the federal government and are expected to be people of stature, selected on the basis of their achievements, experience and independence. All of the members of the board are expected to devote significant time to this important endeavor, and the chairman may be appointed to a full-time position; given the broad responsibilities of the board, we believe that having a full-time chairman though not required would usually be the wisest course. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight board's purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and policies that are related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. The board is empowered to carry out its mission in two equally important ways. First, the board is to advise policy makers at the front end, to ensure that when executive branch officials are proposing, making or implementing policy, they appropriately consider and protect privacy and civil liberties. Second, the board is to conduct oversight, by investigating and reviewing government actions at the back end, reviewing the implementation of particular government policies to see whether the government is acting with appropriate respect for privacy and civil liberties and adhering to applicable rules. Further, the bill provides the board with the tools it will need to carry out its functions.

Ms. COLLINS. In addition to the step-by-step development process my colleague has described, I would also note that the other key means by which the legislation seeks to ensure the successful implementation of the ISE is through the appointment of a program manager. Not later than 120 days after enactment of the legislation, the President is required to designate an individual who is to be responsible for information sharing across the Federal Government. By placing a single individual in charge of the development of the ISE, the legislation seeks to ensure the accountability and focus necessary to accomplish this critically important task. Although the President has discretion to determine whom to designate as program manager, it is essential, and required by subsection 1016(f)(1), that the program manager have and exercise government-wide authority; the ISE will involve the sharing of terrorism-related information from across the government, including from entities outside the intelligence community--whether bioterror information from the Centers for Disease Control or relevant border information from Customs and immigration offices at the Department of Homeland Security--so that the program manager will be someone with responsibilities that cut across the Federal Government as well. Although the DNI is, and will continue to be, responsible for setting information sharing standards throughout the intelligence community (a responsibility expressly recognized in subsection 1016(e)(10)(A)), it is not our intent that the DNI also assume the further responsibilities of program manager. We expect and intend that whomever is designated as program manager will have the development of the ISE as their sole or primary responsibility, and we believe that it is desirable that the individual have management expertise in enterprise architecture, information sharing and interoperability. The legislation provides that the program manager is to serve for 2 years, during the initial development of the ISE, to ensure that the project gets off to a sound start. As part of the implementation plan to be submitted to Congress after one year, the program manager is to recommend a future management structure for the ISE, including a recommendation as to whether the position of program manager should continue. During this two-year start up period, the program manager will be assisted in his or her efforts by an Information System Council established by the legislation and based on the existing Information System Council established by the President through executive order. The council, made up of representatives from agencies participating in the ISE, will not only advise the President and the program manager, but also, among other things, provide a means of coordinating among the various agencies participating in the ISE, helping to resolve interagency disputes that may arise. In performing its duties, the council is to consider input from those outside the Federal Government as well--including state, local, and tribal officials and those in the private sector who are potential participants in the ISE or who have relevant policy or technical expertise. I also note the legislation provides that the individual agencies that possess terrorism information or otherwise participate in the ISE are to fully cooperate in the development of the ISE. The cooperation of all relevant agencies is critical to the success of this government-wide information sharing effort, and agencies can expect Congressional oversight to ensure that they are planning for, and fully contributing to, the construction of the ISE. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Ms. COLLINS. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague about the importance of these information sharing provisions. I also want to emphasize that the ISE is not some mammoth new database. Indeed, it is not just technology, but rather represents a combination of technologies and policies designed to facilitate the appropriate sharing of terrorism information. Section 1016 includes a list of attributes the ISE is required to have. These include such things as facilitating the sharing of information among those who have differing levels of access or clearance or different capacities to make use of the information--i.e., providing information from the beginning in its most shareable form, so that the maximum number of individuals can access the information in at least some meaningful form at its earliest point of consumability-- while having additional details available to those who are granted appropriate access; in this way, the right information gets to the right consumer at the right time. It also includes building on existing systems where possible, rather than creating whole new, and potentially overlapping, systems, and employs an information access management approach that controls access to the data rather than just systems and networks without sacrificing security. And it includes incorporating protections for individuals' privacy and civil liberties from the very beginning--both in the policies of the environment and in technologies and processes to ensure that the policies are adhered to.