Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator Ben Nelson, to introduce a bill that would assist States through a period when most are experiencing fiscal crises. I am particularly pleased to team with Senator Nelson on this effort, as we have teamed on so many efforts in the past, because he has such a solid grasp of the fiscal issues now facing our States, and the ways we can most effectively help. We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Hutchinson, Lincoln, Clinton and Gordon Smith, making this, truly, a bipartisan effort. The recession may have ended earlier this year, but its effects linger, and they are being felt acutely by States from Maine to Nebraska, from New York to California. Though the recession has ended and economic growth picked up in the first quarter of the year, unemployment continues to rise, and now, standing at 6 percent, the U.S. unemployment rate is at an eight-year high. The recession, the resulting rise in unemployment, and the tragic events of September 11 have placed tremendous demands on government services and resources. At the same time, these factors have contributed to a dramatic and unexpected decrease in government revenues, at precisely the time when more revenues are needed to respond to the confluence of challenges that confront us. The result of increasing demands for services and resources and declining revenues is that States across the Nation are in crisis. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers this month found that over 40 States are facing an aggregate budget shortfall of between $40 and $50 billion. Most States have seen their estimates of tax collections for the current year decrease, often dramatically. And while State governments are scrambling to respond, they are constrained in their ability to do so by one key factor, they cannot run deficits. Forty-nine States are required by law or constitution to balance their budgets. As a result, thirty-nine States have been forced to reduce their already-enacted budgets for fiscal year 2002 by cutting programs across-the-board, tapping rainy day funds, laying off employees, and implementing a variety of other cost-cutting measures. According to a National Conference of State Legislators report in April, States have been forced to cut a number of critical programs. Twenty-nine States have attempted to balance their budgets by cutting spending on higher education. Twenty-five States have cut corrections programs. Twenty-two have cut Medicaid. Seventeen States have cut K-12 education. And ten States have reduced aid to local governments. In addition, a number of States have raised taxes and fees by a total of $2.4 billion in 2003. We believe that the Federal Government can and should help States, and that it should do so in a responsible way. Therefore, today we are introducing legislation that would provide a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. It would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.0 percent and hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. In addition, the bill includes a temporary block grant to States that would help them pay for the rising demand in social services resulting from the economic downturn. Our bill would provide approximately $8.9 billion in total fiscal relief to States which would allow them to expand, not contract, Medicaid and other health and social services. Our approach to fiscal relief has been endorsed by the National Governors Association, which supports our bill because it represents a sound and reasonable, bipartisan approach to State fiscal relief, and one that could be enacted expeditiously. It is also endorsed by the American Hospital Association, which understands the importance of providing assistance to States at a time when many are looking toward health programs to help balance their budgets. Our bill targets most of its assistance on Medicaid, which is the fastest growing component of State budgets. While State revenues were stagnant or declined in many states last year, Medicaid costs increased 11 percent. This year, Medicaid costs are increasing at an even greater rate, 13.4 percent. My home State of Maine is only one of a number of States that has been forced to consider cuts in their Medicaid programs to make up for their budget shortfalls. Earlier this year, Maine was facing a $248 million revenue shortfall. Faced with nothing but tough choices, our Governor proposed $58 million in Medicaid cuts, including reductions in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and physicians. He was also forced to propose a delay in the enactment of legislation passed by the State Legislature last year to expand Medicaid to provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-income uninsured Mainers. While subsequent revisions in the State's revenue forecasts enabled the Governor to restore most of these Medicaid cuts, the respite was only temporary. Earlier this month, Maine's budget estimators determined that the State's revenues would come in some $90 million under budget this year, and would experience another $90 million shortfall in the year to come. Suddenly, the State again must consider cutting critical programs and raising taxes. This is no small matter as, by some measures, Maine already imposes the highest tax burden in the Nation on its residents. The legislation we are introducing today will help to bridge Maine's funding gap by bringing an additional $56 million to my State's Medicaid and social services programs over the next eighteen months These funds would help forestall the need for any further cuts, and, hopefully, allow Maine to proceed with its plans to expand its Medicaid program to provide health care coverage for more of our low-income uninsured. The order facing Governor King in Maine and other governors across the country is a tall one indeed. The decisions they may be forced to make could affect the access of millions of Americans to health care and social services. I think we need to help, and the bill Senator Nelson and I introduce today does precisely that. We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator Ben Nelson, to introduce a bill that would assist States through a period when most are experiencing fiscal crises. I am particularly pleased to team with Senator Nelson on this effort, as we have teamed on so many efforts in the past, because he has such a solid grasp of the fiscal issues now facing our States, and the ways we can most effectively help. We are pleased to be joined today by Senators Hutchinson, Lincoln, Clinton and Gordon Smith, making this, truly, a bipartisan effort. The recession may have ended earlier this year, but its effects linger, and they are being felt acutely by States from Maine to Nebraska, from New York to California. Though the recession has ended and economic growth picked up in the first quarter of the year, unemployment continues to rise, and now, standing at 6 percent, the U.S. unemployment rate is at an eight-year high. The recession, the resulting rise in unemployment, and the tragic events of September 11 have placed tremendous demands on government services and resources. At the same time, these factors have contributed to a dramatic and unexpected decrease in government revenues, at precisely the time when more revenues are needed to respond to the confluence of challenges that confront us. The result of increasing demands for services and resources and declining revenues is that States across the Nation are in crisis. The National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers this month found that over 40 States are facing an aggregate budget shortfall of between $40 and $50 billion. Most States have seen their estimates of tax collections for the current year decrease, often dramatically. And while State governments are scrambling to respond, they are constrained in their ability to do so by one key factor, they cannot run deficits. Forty-nine States are required by law or constitution to balance their budgets. As a result, thirty-nine States have been forced to reduce their already-enacted budgets for fiscal year 2002 by cutting programs across-the-board, tapping rainy day funds, laying off employees, and implementing a variety of other cost-cutting measures. According to a National Conference of State Legislators report in April, States have been forced to cut a number of critical programs. Twenty-nine States have attempted to balance their budgets by cutting spending on higher education. Twenty-five States have cut corrections programs. Twenty-two have cut Medicaid. Seventeen States have cut K-12 education. And ten States have reduced aid to local governments. In addition, a number of States have raised taxes and fees by a total of $2.4 billion in 2003. We believe that the Federal Government can and should help States, and that it should do so in a responsible way. Therefore, today we are introducing legislation that would provide a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. It would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.0 percent and hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless for the remainder of this fiscal year and next. In addition, the bill includes a temporary block grant to States that would help them pay for the rising demand in social services resulting from the economic downturn. Our bill would provide approximately $8.9 billion in total fiscal relief to States which would allow them to expand, not contract, Medicaid and other health and social services. Our approach to fiscal relief has been endorsed by the National Governors Association, which supports our bill because it represents a sound and reasonable, bipartisan approach to State fiscal relief, and one that could be enacted expeditiously. It is also endorsed by the American Hospital Association, which understands the importance of providing assistance to States at a time when many are looking toward health programs to help balance their budgets. Our bill targets most of its assistance on Medicaid, which is the fastest growing component of State budgets. While State revenues were stagnant or declined in many states last year, Medicaid costs increased 11 percent. This year, Medicaid costs are increasing at an even greater rate, 13.4 percent. My home State of Maine is only one of a number of States that has been forced to consider cuts in their Medicaid programs to make up for their budget shortfalls. Earlier this year, Maine was facing a $248 million revenue shortfall. Faced with nothing but tough choices, our Governor proposed $58 million in Medicaid cuts, including reductions in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and physicians. He was also forced to propose a delay in the enactment of legislation passed by the State Legislature last year to expand Medicaid to provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-income uninsured Mainers. While subsequent revisions in the State's revenue forecasts enabled the Governor to restore most of these Medicaid cuts, the respite was only temporary. Earlier this month, Maine's budget estimators determined that the State's revenues would come in some $90 million under budget this year, and would experience another $90 million shortfall in the year to come. Suddenly, the State again must consider cutting critical programs and raising taxes. This is no small matter as, by some measures, Maine already imposes the highest tax burden in the Nation on its residents. The legislation we are introducing today will help to bridge Maine's funding gap by bringing an additional $56 million to my State's Medicaid and social services programs over the next eighteen months These funds would help forestall the need for any further cuts, and, hopefully, allow Maine to proceed with its plans to expand its Medicaid program to provide health care coverage for more of our low-income uninsured. The order facing Governor King in Maine and other governors across the country is a tall one indeed. The decisions they may be forced to make could affect the access of millions of Americans to health care and social services. I think we need to help, and the bill Senator Nelson and I introduce today does precisely that. We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I begin by thanking Senator Kennedy, Senator Judd Gregg, Senator Bill Frist, and all of those who have worked so hard to bring this important legislation to the floor. I am convinced that the bioterrorism bill to which we are about to give final approval will make a real difference in our Nation's ability to detect and, in the unfortunate event, respond to a bioterrorism attack. I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes food safety provisions which I have advocated for some time. In 1998, in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I conducted a 16-month investigation into the safety of imported food. What we found was truly frightening. We discovered that the FDA inspects fewer than 1 percent of all shipments of imported fruits and vegetables. And we discovered that the safety net for ensuring that imported food was, indeed, wholesome and safe was deeply flawed. We found that an unscrupulous shipper could very easily ship tainted food from one port to another without detection. If the system was that vulnerable to an unethical shipper, think what a determined terrorist could do. So I am convinced the provisions included in this bill will make a real difference in helping to ensure the safety of our food supply. I note that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, recently testified before the HELP Committee that one of his greatest concerns was the vulnerability of our food supply. I believe the provisions that are included in this bill will help to ensure that our food supply is safe from a terrorist attack. We have a long way to go in the war against terrorism, but this major bioterrorism legislation is an important step in securing the United States of America. Again, I commend the two leaders of our committee and all of those who have worked so hard to bring us to agreement on this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Human Tissue Transplant Safety Act of 2002, which would provide a much needed regulatory framework to help ensure the safety of transplanted human tissue. In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA examined the public health issues posed by human tissue transplantation and concluded that the existing regulatory framework was insufficient and needed to be strengthened. Yet more than 5 years later, the agency has failed to implement critical regulatory changes and strengthen oversight of tissue processors, known as tissue banks. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help remedy the gaps in the regulatory safety net. While people are familiar with the concept of organ donation, tissue donation is not well understood by most Americans. Yet the tissue industry is very diverse and is growing rapidly. In fact, tissue donations now make possible about 750,000 transplants per year. The recovery and medical use of tissue, including skin, bone, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, and heart valves, are unlike organ transplants because the tissue is usually not transplanted ``as-is'' from the donor's body into that of the recipient. Rather, donated tissue frequently undergoes considerable processing before it can be used. Bone from a donor's femur, for example, can be reshaped into a component designed to give support to a recipient's spine. Technology that greatly reduces the risk of rejection now allows surgeons to use actual bone in their patients rather than metal or other synthetic substances. In addition, donated tissue, once it is processed, can frequently be stored for a period of time. In contrast, organs must be transplanted into the recipient's body within hours of their recovery. The organizations that make up the tissue industry are collectively referred to as tissue banks. Some are engaged in tissue recovery, while others process, store, and distribute human tissue. Tissue donation is a generous, selfless act that improves the lives of many Americans. Just one donor, in fact, can help a large number of people in various ways. Skin donations, for instance, can be used to heal burn victims or aid in reconstructive surgical procedures. Ligaments and tendons can be used to repair worn-out knees. Bone donations can be used in hip replacements or spinal surgery enabling recipients to regain mobility. Donated arteries and veins can restore circulation, and heart valves can be transplanted to save lives. The phenomenal growth and increasing competitiveness of the industry in its search for new sources of donated tissue, however, have resulted in some problems. Tissue obtained from unsuitable donors has been allowed to enter the American tissue supply, raising serious doubts about the adequacy of federal regulations. Other concerns involve whether or not the practices of some tissue banks are sufficient to reduce the danger of spreading such illnesses as the human variant of mad cow disease. Because communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, among others, can also be transmitted through tissues, it is vital that potential donors be screened for suitability and tissue be tested effectively, to make sure it is safe. FDA recognized these issues in 1997, and the agency published its ``Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products.'' The FDA proposed to: (1) require infectious disease screening and testing for cells and tissue transplanted from one person to another; (2) require that cells and tissues be handled according to procedures designed to prevent contamination and preserve tissue function and integrity; and (3) require all tissue processing facilities to register with the agency. Thereafter, FDA promulgated three separate regulations that address these requirements. But of those, only a registration requirement has been implemented. Five years later, the majority of the proposed regulatory changes still have not been adopted, and, remarkably, FDA officials recently advised me that the agency cannot even tell me when the remaining regulations will be made final. The FDA's failure to act in this area that affects public health and safety is simply inexcusable. It is a case, apparently, of bureaucratic inertia at its worst. I have long been concerned about the vulnerabilities that exist in the tissue industry and the adequacy of the Government's oversight. Last year--exactly a year ago--as the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held a hearing to look at tissue banks and the efficacy of the current regulatory framework. The testimony was deeply troubling. For example, one witness testified that some unscrupulous tissue banks have engaged in a practice in which tissues that were initially tested positive for contamination were simply tested over and over again until the technicians achieved the negative result they wanted. Let me explain that again. This is human tissue that has tested positive for contamination, and the reaction to that was to keep testing it until a negative result came up. You cannot keep testing into compliance. Obviously, there is a problem if, even once, the tissue tests positive for contamination; and it should not be used. The FDA official in my hearing called this ``testing tissue into compliance'' a practice that is obviously unsafe and must be stopped. The hearing also revealed that scores of tissue banks have never once been inspected by the FDA. And of those that have been inspected, some were found to have had deficiencies, but they were never reinspected to see that the problems had been corrected. Moreover, the FDA had no concept, prior to the registration requirement, of how many tissue banks were actually operating. The FDA thought there were possibly 150. More than 350 registered as a result of the one requirement that the FDA did put into effect. As a result of the subcommittee's in-depth investigation, I concluded that serious gaps existed in the FDA's regulation. But I also thought, and hoped, and have received promises from the agency, that it would act. After all, it had developed a good, sound strategy back in 1997. So last year, in the hearings that I held a year ago this month, the FDA promised me that the regulations would be made final. Unfortunately, I have been proven wrong about the FDA's commitment to reform. And the lack of action has had serious, indeed, tragic consequences. In November of last year, a 23-year-old man died in Minnesota after undergoing routine knee surgery in which tissue was transplanted into his body. It contained a deadly bacteria which ultimately killed this young man. Others have fallen seriously ill because of the tainted tissue transplants. In March of this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released findings that linked bacterial infections in donated human tissue to allografts that had been used for transplants in 26 cases. And the number, undoubtedly, is going to increase since the CDC's investigation is still ongoing. I have tried to work with the FDA to expedite the implementation of the proposed regulations. I have asked, repeatedly: What does the FDA need? Are more resources needed? Just tell us what you need. But, unfortunately, the threat to public health that the FDA identified so long ago continues to exist today. In an effort to prevent any further tragedies, I am today introducing legislation to require the FDA to go forward and issue these much needed regulations. First, my legislation will explicitly authorize the FDA to regulate any entity that engages in the recovery, screening, testing, processing, storage, or distribution of human tissue, or human tissue- based products. In other words, all tissue banks would be required to adhere to the standards that the FDA has identified as necessary for ensuring public safety. This provision would remove any doubt about the FDA's authority to regulate tissue banks. Second, the legislation will make it mandatory for all tissue banks to register with the FDA. If any tissue bank is out of compliance with FDA requirements, the agency will be authorized to suspend and, if necessary, revoke the tissue bank's registration, to prevent the bank from operating. Third, the legislation will require tissue banks to report adverse incidents, including the detection of an infection within 15 days. Currently, tissue banks are not required to report adverse incidents to the Federal Government. And if they do not voluntarily report incidents, it is very difficult for the Federal Government to take effective action. Finally, the bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a database to store the adverse incident reports. That central repository of information would be very useful to the CDC. I want to emphasize that the vast majority of tissue banks operate in a safe, professional manner. We are now very fortunate that advances in technology allow tissue to be used in ways that truly enhance lives for thousands of Americans. This legislation will help ensure that the transplantation of human tissue saves lives, not ends them.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2531 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Human Tissue Transplant Safety Act of 2002, which would provide a much needed regulatory framework to help ensure the safety of transplanted human tissue. In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA examined the public health issues posed by human tissue transplantation and concluded that the existing regulatory framework was insufficient and needed to be strengthened. Yet more than 5 years later, the agency has failed to implement critical regulatory changes and strengthen oversight of tissue processors, known as tissue banks. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help remedy the gaps in the regulatory safety net. While people are familiar with the concept of organ donation, tissue donation is not well understood by most Americans. Yet the tissue industry is very diverse and is growing rapidly. In fact, tissue donations now make possible about 750,000 transplants per year. The recovery and medical use of tissue, including skin, bone, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, and heart valves, are unlike organ transplants because the tissue is usually not transplanted ``as-is'' from the donor's body into that of the recipient. Rather, donated tissue frequently undergoes considerable processing before it can be used. Bone from a donor's femur, for example, can be reshaped into a component designed to give support to a recipient's spine. Technology that greatly reduces the risk of rejection now allows surgeons to use actual bone in their patients rather than metal or other synthetic substances. In addition, donated tissue, once it is processed, can frequently be stored for a period of time. In contrast, organs must be transplanted into the recipient's body within hours of their recovery. The organizations that make up the tissue industry are collectively referred to as tissue banks. Some are engaged in tissue recovery, while others process, store, and distribute human tissue. Tissue donation is a generous, selfless act that improves the lives of many Americans. Just one donor, in fact, can help a large number of people in various ways. Skin donations, for instance, can be used to heal burn victims or aid in reconstructive surgical procedures. Ligaments and tendons can be used to repair worn-out knees. Bone donations can be used in hip replacements or spinal surgery enabling recipients to regain mobility. Donated arteries and veins can restore circulation, and heart valves can be transplanted to save lives. The phenomenal growth and increasing competitiveness of the industry in its search for new sources of donated tissue, however, have resulted in some problems. Tissue obtained from unsuitable donors has been allowed to enter the American tissue supply, raising serious doubts about the adequacy of federal regulations. Other concerns involve whether or not the practices of some tissue banks are sufficient to reduce the danger of spreading such illnesses as the human variant of mad cow disease. Because communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, among others, can also be transmitted through tissues, it is vital that potential donors be screened for suitability and tissue be tested effectively, to make sure it is safe. FDA recognized these issues in 1997, and the agency published its ``Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products.'' The FDA proposed to: (1) require infectious disease screening and testing for cells and tissue transplanted from one person to another; (2) require that cells and tissues be handled according to procedures designed to prevent contamination and preserve tissue function and integrity; and (3) require all tissue processing facilities to register with the agency. Thereafter, FDA promulgated three separate regulations that address these requirements. But of those, only a registration requirement has been implemented. Five years later, the majority of the proposed regulatory changes still have not been adopted, and, remarkably, FDA officials recently advised me that the agency cannot even tell me when the remaining regulations will be made final. The FDA's failure to act in this area that affects public health and safety is simply inexcusable. It is a case, apparently, of bureaucratic inertia at its worst. I have long been concerned about the vulnerabilities that exist in the tissue industry and the adequacy of the Government's oversight. Last year--exactly a year ago--as the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held a hearing to look at tissue banks and the efficacy of the current regulatory framework. The testimony was deeply troubling. For example, one witness testified that some unscrupulous tissue banks have engaged in a practice in which tissues that were initially tested positive for contamination were simply tested over and over again until the technicians achieved the negative result they wanted. Let me explain that again. This is human tissue that has tested positive for contamination, and the reaction to that was to keep testing it until a negative result came up. You cannot keep testing into compliance. Obviously, there is a problem if, even once, the tissue tests positive for contamination; and it should not be used. The FDA official in my hearing called this ``testing tissue into compliance'' a practice that is obviously unsafe and must be stopped. The hearing also revealed that scores of tissue banks have never once been inspected by the FDA. And of those that have been inspected, some were found to have had deficiencies, but they were never reinspected to see that the problems had been corrected. Moreover, the FDA had no concept, prior to the registration requirement, of how many tissue banks were actually operating. The FDA thought there were possibly 150. More than 350 registered as a result of the one requirement that the FDA did put into effect. As a result of the subcommittee's in-depth investigation, I concluded that serious gaps existed in the FDA's regulation. But I also thought, and hoped, and have received promises from the agency, that it would act. After all, it had developed a good, sound strategy back in 1997. So last year, in the hearings that I held a year ago this month, the FDA promised me that the regulations would be made final. Unfortunately, I have been proven wrong about the FDA's commitment to reform. And the lack of action has had serious, indeed, tragic consequences. In November of last year, a 23-year-old man died in Minnesota after undergoing routine knee surgery in which tissue was transplanted into his body. It contained a deadly bacteria which ultimately killed this young man. Others have fallen seriously ill because of the tainted tissue transplants. In March of this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released findings that linked bacterial infections in donated human tissue to allografts that had been used for transplants in 26 cases. And the number, undoubtedly, is going to increase since the CDC's investigation is still ongoing. I have tried to work with the FDA to expedite the implementation of the proposed regulations. I have asked, repeatedly: What does the FDA need? Are more resources needed? Just tell us what you need. But, unfortunately, the threat to public health that the FDA identified so long ago continues to exist today. In an effort to prevent any further tragedies, I am today introducing legislation to require the FDA to go forward and issue these much needed regulations. First, my legislation will explicitly authorize the FDA to regulate any entity that engages in the recovery, screening, testing, processing, storage, or distribution of human tissue, or human tissue- based products. In other words, all tissue banks would be required to adhere to the standards that the FDA has identified as necessary for ensuring public safety. This provision would remove any doubt about the FDA's authority to regulate tissue banks. Second, the legislation will make it mandatory for all tissue banks to register with the FDA. If any tissue bank is out of compliance with FDA requirements, the agency will be authorized to suspend and, if necessary, revoke the tissue bank's registration, to prevent the bank from operating. Third, the legislation will require tissue banks to report adverse incidents, including the detection of an infection within 15 days. Currently, tissue banks are not required to report adverse incidents to the Federal Government. And if they do not voluntarily report incidents, it is very difficult for the Federal Government to take effective action. Finally, the bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a database to store the adverse incident reports. That central repository of information would be very useful to the CDC. I want to emphasize that the vast majority of tissue banks operate in a safe, professional manner. We are now very fortunate that advances in technology allow tissue to be used in ways that truly enhance lives for thousands of Americans. This legislation will help ensure that the transplantation of human tissue saves lives, not ends them.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill that Senator Cantwell and I introduced yesterday that will make it easier for States and localities to secure meaningful work for dislocated workers. Senator Cantwell is a true advocate for unemployed workers and for economic development, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on this and other initiatives designed to strengthen our workers and our communities. This is designed to increase the ability of States and local workforce investment boards, under the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to match trained workers with productive jobs and also to create systematic change in a targeted industry or occupation. Our bill creates a three-step process for States and local workforce boards to accomplish this goal: The first step involves a study. Using the latest labor market and economic information, States or local workforce boards will prepare detailed assessments of local areas that identify the gaps between the expected and demand and supply of labor in industry sectors. The second step involves plan. Local workforce boards will join with partners from industry, labor, and the economic development and training sectors to develop comprehensive plans for implementing the assessments, in order to fill the gap between supply and demand. The third and final step involves grants. The local boards will make seed grants for training individuals to meet the demand for workers in certain industries. In my home State of Maine, I have worked with local workforce boards, regional technical colleges and high schools, businesses, workers and community leaders to develop training programs that focus on particular market sectors within a particular region. I secured federal appropriations for programs to train workers in the metal trades in northern and western Maine. Today, dislocated workers in Aroostook County and Rumford, Maine are being trained as metal workers. I also secured funding for a training pilot project in the Central Maine area that will introduce a photonics curriculum in the regional technical high school to train students for careers in the growing field of photonics. This year I am hopeful that a request to fund a program targeted at training in the health care area in Southern Maine will be granted. This bill takes an innovative approach and provides tools to states, localities and regions to implement the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act more effectively. By retraining dislocated workers, we give them access to productive and well-paying work. We also make our workforce stronger to face the challenges of the global marketplace.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the conference report on the farm bill and to express my grave disappointment that this long process has resulted in a bloated and unbalanced bill that I simply cannot support. I am disappointed because there are some components of this bill that would help some farmers in Maine and that I strongly supported when the bill was under consideration by the Senate. For example, the conference report includes funding for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as well as much needed assistance for our apple producers who have suffered from low market prices. It includes conservation funding, more money for the Market Access Program, and a national dairy program that I will discuss in more detail in a moment. It also includes-- thanks in large part to Senator Lugar--a nutrition title that would bring needed assistance to legal immigrants and more working families. The problem is that all of these good programs, including the $17 billion conservation title, add up to only about 25 percent of the entire $180 billion bill. It is the other 75 percent of the bill that I simply must oppose. My colleagues, particularly Senator Lugar, have described in detail why this bill is bad for our farmers and our Nation. I agree with their analysis. This legislation perpetuates a dependency that leads to overproduction that is harmful to our land and ultimately to our farm economy. I am disappointed to see the reforms begun in the last farm bill sacrificed in a frenzy of overspending. This bill is both too expensive and unbalanced. It provides far too much in Federal subsidies for some of the Nation's largest agribusinesses and not enough for the small family farmers in my State and across the Nation. At a time when we as a nation are trying to shore up homeland security, provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and safeguard Social Security, we can ill afford to spend more than $180 billion on agricultural programs that benefit the few at the expense of the many. How can we justify passing an 80-percent increase in farm spending when we are facing a deficit that could easily reach $100 billion or more this year? It is not responsible to pass this bill. We should send it back to conference and come up with a more reasonable proposal. I am also concerned about the environmental implications of this conference report. While the increased conservation funding included in the legislation is certainly a step in the right direction, the conference committee slashed the environmental spending by $4.2 billion from what was included in the Senate bill. I share the disappointment of the Sierra Club and other conservation organizations with the final version of the bill in this regard. Faced with a choice of cutting conservation, forestry, and other modestly funded programs in this bill versus cutting the bloated commodity programs, the conferees unfortunately chose the former every single time. While I am pleased that the conference report includes some modest assistance for Maine's dairy farmers, I am disappointed that the Northeast Dairy Compact was not reauthorized. The dairy compact provided far more assistance to Maine dairy farmers and at no cost to taxpayers. That is why I wish we had simply extended the Northeast Dairy Compact, which was working very well at no cost to our Federal Treasury. The new program included in the bill provides less help to Maine's dairy farmers and at a high cost to taxpayers. I view this as a temporary measure to help keep our dairy farmers solvent until the compact can be reauthorized. I am also deeply disappointed that the payment limitations that were included in the Senate version of the farm bill, and that Senators Grassley and Dorgan worked so hard to include, were not retained in the conference report. While there is a supposed cap of $360,000 in payments that any one farmer may receive, the conference report exempts the little known crop loan certificate program. The result is to create a loophole that will allow some of the Nation's largest agribusinesses to receive millions of dollars on top of already generous commodity crop payments. Thus, more than 60 percent of the payments authorized by this bill will go to fewer than 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. Many small family farmers will receive absolutely nothing at all from this legislation. The farm savings accounts, which I worked so hard for, would have helped our small family farmers, but regrettably once again they were dropped from the bill. Finally, while this conference report is bad for the Nation, it is even worse for Maine and I strongly suspect other Northeastern States as well. Maine receives precious little from this bill's unprecedented largess: 99.9 percent of the bill's funds will be spent outside of our State. In other words, for every $1,000 it costs taxpayers to fund this bill, only $1 will come back to Maine. I recognize that Maine does not grow the program crops of the scope and scale found in other States, and in recognition of this fact I would have been pleased to vote for a responsible farm bill that provided for the vast majority of funds to go elsewhere. But in this bill I cannot help but feel that Maine and other Northeastern States have been tossed a little bit of hush money and then asked to turn the other way while big agribusinesses raid the U.S. Treasury of funds that are sorely needed for education, prescription drugs, defense, and other priorities. This is not a responsible bill. We can do better, and I hope the Senate will vote to reject the conference report. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the Small Business Contracts Opportunity Act of 2002. This legislation would help expand opportunities for small businesses to bid on government contracts, thus allowing them to sell more products and services to Federal agencies. The bill would prohibit the consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5 million absent a written determination that the benefits of consolidation substantially exceed the benefits of alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, P.L. 105-135, requires Federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the potential impact of ``bundled contracts,'' and to proceed with such contracts only if the benefits of bundling substantially exceed the benefits of proceeding with separate contracts. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies, have narrowly interpreted these provisions of the Small Business Reauthorization Act. The result is that too many Federal contracts are so large that they are out of reach for small businesses. Yet, small businesses could perform the work if the contract requirements were divided into separate contracts rather than consolidated. For the past several years, the evidence that contract bundling is hurting small businesses has been growing. For example, on November 16, ``Eagle Eye'' publishing released its second study on bundling since 1997, which found that the Defense Department is the biggest culprit of bundling, accounting for 82 percent of all bundled dollars. The study report goes on to say, that large businesses are the main beneficiaries of bundling, and highlights that large firms win 74 percent of all bundled dollars and 67 percent of all prime contract dollars. With the average bundling contract worth $8 million, it is no wonder small businesses receive only 9 percent of all bundled contract dollars. Eagle Eye found that the average bundled contract was 11 times larger than the average unbundled contract. Also, according to the Eagle Eye study, major DoD bureaus remain the largest proponents of bundling. Army's 1999 bundled total was up to 22 percent since 1992 to $15.8 billion, while Navy increased only by 2 percent, but still managed to bundle $22 billion worth of contracts. Air Force bundled $18.8 billion, but offered some good news because its total is down 24 percent since 1992. The legislation that I am proposing would require the Department of Defense to prove the cost benefit of consolidating a contract in excess of $5 million. Now is the time to enact this modest provision to ensure that our small businesses have the opportunities that they deserve to provide goods and services for the Department of Defense. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Contract Consolidation Act of 2002.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the Small Business Contracts Opportunity Act of 2002. This legislation would help expand opportunities for small businesses to bid on government contracts, thus allowing them to sell more products and services to Federal agencies. The bill would prohibit the consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5 million absent a written determination that the benefits of consolidation substantially exceed the benefits of alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, P.L. 105-135, requires Federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the potential impact of ``bundled contracts,'' and to proceed with such contracts only if the benefits of bundling substantially exceed the benefits of proceeding with separate contracts. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies, have narrowly interpreted these provisions of the Small Business Reauthorization Act. The result is that too many Federal contracts are so large that they are out of reach for small businesses. Yet, small businesses could perform the work if the contract requirements were divided into separate contracts rather than consolidated. For the past several years, the evidence that contract bundling is hurting small businesses has been growing. For example, on November 16, ``Eagle Eye'' publishing released its second study on bundling since 1997, which found that the Defense Department is the biggest culprit of bundling, accounting for 82 percent of all bundled dollars. The study report goes on to say, that large businesses are the main beneficiaries of bundling, and highlights that large firms win 74 percent of all bundled dollars and 67 percent of all prime contract dollars. With the average bundling contract worth $8 million, it is no wonder small businesses receive only 9 percent of all bundled contract dollars. Eagle Eye found that the average bundled contract was 11 times larger than the average unbundled contract. Also, according to the Eagle Eye study, major DoD bureaus remain the largest proponents of bundling. Army's 1999 bundled total was up to 22 percent since 1992 to $15.8 billion, while Navy increased only by 2 percent, but still managed to bundle $22 billion worth of contracts. Air Force bundled $18.8 billion, but offered some good news because its total is down 24 percent since 1992. The legislation that I am proposing would require the Department of Defense to prove the cost benefit of consolidating a contract in excess of $5 million. Now is the time to enact this modest provision to ensure that our small businesses have the opportunities that they deserve to provide goods and services for the Department of Defense. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Contract Consolidation Act of 2002.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation will provide our National Guard and Reserve personnel with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the 52- member Partnership for Veterans Education, the bill provides assistance and equity that is logical, fair, and worthy of a Nation that values both higher education and those who defend the freedoms that we all enjoy. Under the total force concept of our military services, a large number of Selected Reserve personnel are now on active duty to support the war on terrorism at home and abroad. The original G.I. bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post- service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned to college with assistance from the G.I. bill. Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. bill have continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in-between. Since the adoption of the total force concept and the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. bill in 1985. It is a two-part program, one for active duty personnel and veterans and another for members of the Selected Reserve. The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the Montgomery G.I. bill, however, has eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education, making it harder for service members and veterans to achieve their educational goals. Last year, military recruiters indicated to me that the program's benefits no longer were as strong an incentive to join the military; nor did they serve as a retention toll valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military, either on active duty or in the Selected Reserve. Perhaps most important, the program has been losing its value as an instrument to help our National Guard and Reserve personnel to maximize their productivity and contributions to their families and the coummunities of which they are a part by furthering their education and training. In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. bill up until January of this year provided the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served in the defense of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a mere 8 percent increase over a time period when inflation had nearly doubled, and a dollar bought only half of what it once purchased. During the first session of the 107th Congress, we were successful in addressing some of these problems. Public Law 107-103 greatly improved educational assistance benefits available under the part of the Montgomery GI bill for service members and veterans, Chapter 30. This part of the G.I. bill now provides nine monthly $800 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $28,800. On October 1, 2002, the monthly amount will increase to $900, producing a new total benefit of $32,400 for the four academic years, a considerable improvement that Senator Johnson and I worked hard to accomplish. Now is the time to bring educational assistance program for members of the Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606, in line with Chapter 30. Current full-time assistance for the Selected Reserve is $272 per month for a total benefit of $9,792, only 34 percent of the monthly amount currently received under the Chapter 30 program. The bill that we are introducing today would raise the monthly amount of assistance for our Selected Reserve to $428, for a new total benefit of $15,408 and be comparable to the increases that have and will occur in the Chapter 30 program. The increase would be effective October 1, 2002. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our Nation's service members, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, strengthen the State and national economies, and partially reflect the current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. bill for members of our National Guard and Reserve forces. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation will provide our National Guard and Reserve personnel with expanded educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the 52- member Partnership for Veterans Education, the bill provides assistance and equity that is logical, fair, and worthy of a Nation that values both higher education and those who defend the freedoms that we all enjoy. Under the total force concept of our military services, a large number of Selected Reserve personnel are now on active duty to support the war on terrorism at home and abroad. The original G.I. bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post- service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned to college with assistance from the G.I. bill. Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. bill have continued to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of educational opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period in-between. Since the adoption of the total force concept and the change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. bill in 1985. It is a two-part program, one for active duty personnel and veterans and another for members of the Selected Reserve. The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the Montgomery G.I. bill, however, has eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education, making it harder for service members and veterans to achieve their educational goals. Last year, military recruiters indicated to me that the program's benefits no longer were as strong an incentive to join the military; nor did they serve as a retention toll valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military, either on active duty or in the Selected Reserve. Perhaps most important, the program has been losing its value as an instrument to help our National Guard and Reserve personnel to maximize their productivity and contributions to their families and the coummunities of which they are a part by furthering their education and training. In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. bill up until January of this year provided the lowest level of assistance ever to those who served in the defense of our country. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Twenty years later, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a mere 8 percent increase over a time period when inflation had nearly doubled, and a dollar bought only half of what it once purchased. During the first session of the 107th Congress, we were successful in addressing some of these problems. Public Law 107-103 greatly improved educational assistance benefits available under the part of the Montgomery GI bill for service members and veterans, Chapter 30. This part of the G.I. bill now provides nine monthly $800 stipends per year for four years. The total benefit is $28,800. On October 1, 2002, the monthly amount will increase to $900, producing a new total benefit of $32,400 for the four academic years, a considerable improvement that Senator Johnson and I worked hard to accomplish. Now is the time to bring educational assistance program for members of the Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606, in line with Chapter 30. Current full-time assistance for the Selected Reserve is $272 per month for a total benefit of $9,792, only 34 percent of the monthly amount currently received under the Chapter 30 program. The bill that we are introducing today would raise the monthly amount of assistance for our Selected Reserve to $428, for a new total benefit of $15,408 and be comparable to the increases that have and will occur in the Chapter 30 program. The increase would be effective October 1, 2002. The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made to our Nation's service members, help with recruiting and retention of men and women in our military, strengthen the State and national economies, and partially reflect the current costs of higher education. Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the benefit program of the Montgomery G.I. bill for members of our National Guard and Reserve forces. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, in offering an amendment to the energy bill that would keep in place, for a limited time, incentives for the generation of clean, efficient energy using a technology known as combined heat and power, or cogeneration. Such cogeneration plants use a variety of fuels, from biomass to natural gas, to produce both electricity and steam. Combined heat and power currently produces about 9 percent of our Nation's electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are more than 1,000 facilities operating combined heat and power units in the United States, including hospitals, universities, and industries. There are 95 cogeneration facilities in my home State of Maine alone. By capturing the heat that would be rejected by traditional power generators, combined heat and power is extremely efficient. While a typical coal-fired powerplant only achieves about 34 percent efficiency, cogeneration facilities achieve 70 to 85 percent efficiency. On average, combined heat and power facilities are twice as fuel efficient as conventional utility plants. By keeping in place incentives for using combined heat and power, the Carper-Collins amendment adds to the competitiveness of our domestic manufacturing. Because cogeneration is so efficient, it reduces cost. The President's national energy policy makes clear that combined heat and power offers energy efficiency and cost savings important to many manufacturers that compete in the international marketplace. Our amendment also increases energy security and electric reliability. Dispersing power generation at manufacturing sites is an important tool to reduce the risk to the electricity supply. Generating electricity close to where it will be used reduces the load on existing transmission infrastructure. It reduces the amount of energy lost in transmission while eliminating the need to construct expensive power lines to transmit power from large central station powerplants. In addition, cogeneration reduces the U.S. dependency on foreign sources of energy by encouraging energy efficiency and fuel diversity in electric power generation. Also, our amendment is good for the environment. Because combined heat and power facilities are twice as efficient as conventional plants, they have fewer emissions. They reduce emissions of the chemicals that cause smog and acid rain and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half. For this reason, cogeneration is an important component of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is included in the President's climate initiative. The U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA have set the goal of doubling U.S. cogeneration capacity by 2010. At industrial facilities alone, cogeneration could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 44 million metric tons. They could also reduce emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides by 614,000 tons per year. Let me now add to the comments made by Senator Carper on why this amendment is necessary. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act, known as PURPA, requires utilities to sell backup power to qualifying nonutility power facilities at just and reasonable rates. It also obligates utilities to purchase excess power from cogeneration facilities at prices equal to that utility's own cost of production, known as the avoided cost. The Senate energy bill, however, repeals PURPA. Repealing PURPA would be a good idea if competitive electricity markets existed all across this Nation. Unfortunately, the legislation before us repeals PURPA even if competitive markets are not achieved. Our amendment would keep certain PURPA provisions in place until competitive electricity markets were established. For a limited time our amendment would keep in place the PURPA provisions requiring utilities to provide backup power and buy electricity from qualifying cogeneration facilities. As soon as competitive electricity markets were established, these requirements would be repealed. Without competition, there is no incentive for utilities to provide backup power or purchase electricity from combined heat and power facilities even though that electricity is cleaner and more efficient than most other electricity generation. Until a combined cogeneration facility can shop for backup power from competing suppliers and sell power at a competitive price, PURPA should not be unconditionally repealed. The amendment Senator Carper and I are offering today will keep in place incentives that continue to operate combined heat and power facilities until true competition exists in electricity markets. This amendment is good for the economy, good for the environment, good for our energy policy, and good for the competitiveness of American manufacturing. I thank my colleague from Delaware for involving me in this amendment. I urge our colleagues to support our proposal.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Reed for his comments. LIHEAP is a vital heating assistance program for low- income families with children, senior citizens and disabled individuals. My colleagues in the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition work tirelessly every year to increase funding for this program and to ensure that these resources get to those most in need. There is a terrible reality some low-income households must face each winter, to heat or to eat. Imagine a hard working low-income family that cannot cover the costs of basic necessities in the winter having to ask: Do I heat my home or provide enough food for my children? Or, imagine being an elderly couple and living on a fixed income who has to decide: Do we pay the heating bill or do we buy medicine? In Maine, a majority of our low-income families use heating oil to stay warm. When there is no oil, there is no heat. LIHEAP is the program that keeps the heat on for these families. My State of Maine had to lower this year's benefit by $100 in order to serve the 48,000 households that needed assistance. Over 60 percent of the recipient in my State are elderly living on a fixed income of only $10,000 a year. This year, 4,500 additional households applied for assistance. Many of these families needed help because they are unemployed and have exhausted unemployment benefits. While energy prices are lower this year, they are high for low-income Mainers. The average LIHEAP benefit of $338 per household pays for only a little more then one tank of fuel for these families. In Maine, the average annual cost to heat a home with oil is $1,200. The LIHEAP program was enacted to respond to the higher fuel prices and severe winters in cold weather States. Its primary focus is to alleviate winter heating crises. Heating homes is expensive. According to the National Fuel Funds Network, at the end of the 2000/2001 winter heating season, at least 4.3 million low-income households were at risk of having their utility service cutoff because of an inability to pay their winter home energy bills. In the Northeast and Midwest, the cost to heat a home is more expensive than to cool a home in the south, and families have to spend a greater amount of their incomes on home heating. LIHEAP households in the Northeast and Midwest spend over $1,200 on residential energy. This is 14 percent of their household income in the Northeast and 18 percent in the Midwest. LIHEAP households spend over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter than it costs to cool a home in the south. The current allocation formula acknowledges the important public health role this program serves in cold weather States. Since its enactment, Congress reaffirmed the commitment of this goal. The program has been reauthorized a number of times and Congress maintained its commitment to low-income families faced with high heating bills. It did this by ensuring that no State would receive less than it did when the program was enacted. Low-income households will take drastic, and unsafe, measures to try to stay warm in winter when they are in jeopardy of losing heat. When home energy bills are unaffordable in winter, low-income households rely on alternative heating sources such as ovens or space heaters. The National Fire Protection Association reports that house fires show a sharp increase in the cold-weather months. Half of the home heating fires and three-fourths of the home heating fires deaths occurred in the months of December, January, and February. Not being able to afford utilities place low-income households at increased risk to house fires and illness or death. We need to increase funding for this vital program. Thirty-seven of my colleagues joined Senator Reed and I in seeking increased appropriations for this program for fiscal year 2003. I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg on the HELP Committee on reauthorization of this important program.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I express my opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it is both poor energy policy and poor environmental policy. A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The United States is currently 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 2020, this number could rise to 70 percent. At that time, over 64 percent of the world's oil exports will come from Persian Gulf nations, a prospect that causes me great concern. In light of our increasing dependence on a profoundly undependable source of oil, we must ask ourselves what course do we now chart for our Nation's energy policy? Should we rush to deplete our last major reserve of oil, or should we increase conservation and develop alternative technologies that will allow our children to enjoy a better quality of life? President Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.'' Americans have a right to develop our energy resources, but not to waste them. We could do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the efficiency of our automobiles than by drilling in the Arctic. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today would be akin to wasting resources that should rightfully be there for future generations. We must embrace an ethic of stewardship of our most treasured national resources. Instead of rushing to deplete what is likely the last major oil reserve in the United States, we should instead promote energy efficiency and develop alternative technologies. Doing so will not only make more of an immediate difference than drilling in the Arctic, but it will also ensure that we leave our children with ample energy supplies and a broader array of energy options. We can achieve greater and more immediate energy security by increasing our energy efficiency. According to testimony heard before the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the United States could cut our dangerous reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This would do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than would drilling in ANWR, and the benefits could start almost immediately, not in 10 years. I note that the United States has a tremendous record of increasing energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: following the 1979 OPEC energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in technology, 2.2 percent is attainable. I am disappointed that the Senate last month failed to adopt higher automobile fuel economy standards. The Senate had the chance to save more than twice as much oil as is in the Arctic Refuge by simply increasing fuel economy standards. That proposal, which I cosponsored, would have saved consumers billions of dollars in annual gasoline bills while doing more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than any other single measure. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who first set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In his parting words from the Oval Office, President Eisenhower told the Nation: ``As we peer into society's future, . . . [we] must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.'' Although the Arctic Refuge may seem to some to be the easiest and most convenient source of oil available, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not solve our energy problems. I urge my colleagues to increase our energy efficiency, develop alternative energy sources, and preserve our precious Arctic resources so that our children will have the freedom to make their own choice concerning this vast wilderness reserve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased today to rise, with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, to introduce a bill that would assist States through a period when many are experiencing a fiscal crisis. Stated simply, for the remainder of this year and next, the bill would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.5 percent and hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless in order to provide approximately $7 billion in fiscal relief to States and allow them to expand, not contract, their Medicaid programs. Last month, I was pleased to join with an overwhelming number of our colleagues in passing an economic recovery bill that extended benefits for unemployed workers and provide depreciation incentives for businesses to invest in new facilities and equipment. In short, the bill provided welcome relief to our unemployed workers and to our economy. But it also posed a difficult choice to State governments. In all but a handful of States, corporate and individual income taxes are calculated based on the Federal tax code's definition of income. Thus, when we change how taxable income is calculated under the Federal code, the changes automatically affect the amount of tax collected by States. It has been estimated, for example, that the tax changes made by the economic recovery package will reduce State revenues by $14 billion. States can avoid the revenue loss by ``decoupling'' their tax policies from Federal law, but they do so at a price. Decoupling increases the complexity of paying taxes and forces businesses to devote more resources to compliance. At the most basic level, they would have to calculate taxes two different ways and would have to factor the dueling tax consequences into their business decisions. States that automatically or affirmatively decide to conform to the tax law changes in the economic recovery package are faced with finding ways to cover the loss in expected revenue. This could mean making painful cuts in important areas such as health care, transportation, and education. My home State of Maine was faced with a $27 million revenue loss over the next two years if it chose to conform to the Federal tax law changes, and this on top of a much larger structural budget shortfall. The resulting bleak picture forced the State legislature to contemplate some extremely problematic alternatives, including cuts in the State Medicaid program. Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets. While State revenues were stagnant or declined in many States last year, Medicaid costs increased 11 percent. Maine is only one of a number of States that has been forced to consider cuts in their Medicaid programs to make up for their budget shortfalls. Earlier this year, Maine was facing a $248 million revenue shortfall. Faced with nothing but tough choices, our Governor proposed $58 million in Medicaid cuts, including reductions in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and physicians. He was also forced to propose a delay in the enactment of legislation passed by the State Legislature last year to expand Medicaid to provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-income uninsured Mainers. While subsequent revisions in the State's revenue forecasts enabled the Governor to restore most of these Medicaid cuts, the loss of revenue due to the tax law changes in the economic recovery package could very well put them back on the table, particularly because the Maine legislature has decided to defer a decision on whether to fully conform in 2002 to the bonus depreciation provisions of the economic recovery package until its next legislative session. The legislation I am introducing today will help to bridge Maine's funding gap by bringing an additional $40 million to my State's Medicaid program over the next two years. This should not only forestall the need for any further cuts, but will also provide additional funds to Maine to proceed with its plans to expand its Medicaid program to provide health care coverage for more of our low- income uninsured. I do not want Maine or other States to have to choose between helping our economy recover from recession and helping people in need. Our States need more Federal assistance in providing health care services through Medicaid, not less, which is why I am introducing this bill today. By increasing the Federal medical assistance percentage for all States this year and next, we can relieve the pressure put on States to cut spending on important programs while increasing their capacity to provide services through Medicaid. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in this effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased today to rise, with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, to introduce a bill that would assist States through a period when many are experiencing a fiscal crisis. Stated simply, for the remainder of this year and next, the bill would increase the Federal Government's share of each State's Medicaid costs by 1.5 percent and hold the Federal matching rate for each State harmless in order to provide approximately $7 billion in fiscal relief to States and allow them to expand, not contract, their Medicaid programs. Last month, I was pleased to join with an overwhelming number of our colleagues in passing an economic recovery bill that extended benefits for unemployed workers and provide depreciation incentives for businesses to invest in new facilities and equipment. In short, the bill provided welcome relief to our unemployed workers and to our economy. But it also posed a difficult choice to State governments. In all but a handful of States, corporate and individual income taxes are calculated based on the Federal tax code's definition of income. Thus, when we change how taxable income is calculated under the Federal code, the changes automatically affect the amount of tax collected by States. It has been estimated, for example, that the tax changes made by the economic recovery package will reduce State revenues by $14 billion. States can avoid the revenue loss by ``decoupling'' their tax policies from Federal law, but they do so at a price. Decoupling increases the complexity of paying taxes and forces businesses to devote more resources to compliance. At the most basic level, they would have to calculate taxes two different ways and would have to factor the dueling tax consequences into their business decisions. States that automatically or affirmatively decide to conform to the tax law changes in the economic recovery package are faced with finding ways to cover the loss in expected revenue. This could mean making painful cuts in important areas such as health care, transportation, and education. My home State of Maine was faced with a $27 million revenue loss over the next two years if it chose to conform to the Federal tax law changes, and this on top of a much larger structural budget shortfall. The resulting bleak picture forced the State legislature to contemplate some extremely problematic alternatives, including cuts in the State Medicaid program. Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets. While State revenues were stagnant or declined in many States last year, Medicaid costs increased 11 percent. Maine is only one of a number of States that has been forced to consider cuts in their Medicaid programs to make up for their budget shortfalls. Earlier this year, Maine was facing a $248 million revenue shortfall. Faced with nothing but tough choices, our Governor proposed $58 million in Medicaid cuts, including reductions in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and physicians. He was also forced to propose a delay in the enactment of legislation passed by the State Legislature last year to expand Medicaid to provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low-income uninsured Mainers. While subsequent revisions in the State's revenue forecasts enabled the Governor to restore most of these Medicaid cuts, the loss of revenue due to the tax law changes in the economic recovery package could very well put them back on the table, particularly because the Maine legislature has decided to defer a decision on whether to fully conform in 2002 to the bonus depreciation provisions of the economic recovery package until its next legislative session. The legislation I am introducing today will help to bridge Maine's funding gap by bringing an additional $40 million to my State's Medicaid program over the next two years. This should not only forestall the need for any further cuts, but will also provide additional funds to Maine to proceed with its plans to expand its Medicaid program to provide health care coverage for more of our low- income uninsured. I do not want Maine or other States to have to choose between helping our economy recover from recession and helping people in need. Our States need more Federal assistance in providing health care services through Medicaid, not less, which is why I am introducing this bill today. By increasing the Federal medical assistance percentage for all States this year and next, we can relieve the pressure put on States to cut spending on important programs while increasing their capacity to provide services through Medicaid. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in this effort.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President I am proud to join my colleague from Illinois in offering an amendment to recognize and promote bicycling's important impact on energy savings and public health. With America becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, it is vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make towards solving our Nation's energy challenges. This amendment would establish a Conserve By Bike pilot program that would oversee up to 10 pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips. By replacing even a small percentage of short car trips with bike trips, we would save over 462 million gallons of gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million. While more bike trips would benefit our energy conservation efforts, they would also contribute to the public's health. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, less than one-third of Americans meet Federal recommendations to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity at least five days a week. Even more disturbing is the fact that approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year currently are associated with being obese or overweight. By promoting biking, we are working to ensure that Americans will increase their physical activity. Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation representing the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. This group has done an outstanding job of advocating bicycling safety, education, and access throughout the State. As a result of the work of the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, people living in and visiting Maine will have accessible and safe conditions where they may comfortably and responsibly bicycle. The ``Conserve by Bike'' amendment has received support from this group and many others on the national, State, and local level, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for his assistance and congratulate him on the impending passage of this bill. election day as national holiday colloquy

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that is cosponsored by Senators Cleland, Bond, and Hutchinson, that would modernize the current outdated homebound requirement that has impeded access to needed home health care services for far too many of our Nation's frail, elderly, and disabled Medicare beneficiaries. I thank former Senator Bob Dole, one of our Nation's leading advocates, on behalf of individuals with disabilities, for bringing this issue to my attention. The highly skilled and often technically complex care that our home health care agencies provide has enabled millions of our most vulnerable older and disabled citizens to receive health care just where they want to be: in the security, comfort, and privacy of their own homes. Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered homebound to be eligible for home health services. While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden in order to qualify, his or her condition must be such that ``there exists a normal inability to leave home.'' Moreover, leaving home must require ``a considerable and taxing effort by the individual.'' The law does allow for absences from the home of ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration.'' Unfortunately, the law does not define precisely what this means. It leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short these absences must be. The result is that interpretations of the law vary widely from region to region. As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries who are dependent on Medicare home health services and medical equipment into virtual prisoners in their own homes. We have heard disturbing accounts of individuals on Medicare who have had their home health care benefits terminated for leaving their homes briefly to visit a hospitalized spouse or to attend a major family gathering, including in one case, to attend the funeral of their own child. Another mother did not attend the funeral of her own child out of fear that by doing so, she would jeopardize her home health benefits. This does not make sense, and it is just cruel. The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, disabled Medicare patients. For example, People magazine reported a story last year about a Georgia resident, David Jayne, a 40-year-old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who was confined to a wheelchair and could not swallow, speak, or even breathe on his own. Obviously, he needed skilled nursing visits several times per week in order for him to remain at home and not at an inpatient facility. Despite his disability, however, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with youth and church groups. He is an inspirational person. He speaks using a computerized voice synthesizer and gives inspirational talks about how the human spirit can endure and even overcome great hardship. The Atlantic Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne and his activities, including a report about how he had, with great effort and help from his family and friends, attended a football game to root for the University of Georgia Bulldogs. A few days later, unbelievably, at the direction of the fiscal intermediary, his home health agency--which had been sending a home health nurse to his home for 2 hours, 4 mornings a week--notified him that he was no longer considered homebound and terminated his benefits. His benefits were subsequently reinstated due to the enormous amount of media attention to this case, but this experience motivated him to launch a crusade to modernize the homebound definition and led him to found the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction. So even out of this terrible experience, once again this inspirational individual who is suffering so greatly from Lou Gehrig's disease has managed to launch a crusade to try to prevent what happened to him from happening to other severely disabled individuals who are dependent on home health care. The fact is, the current requirement that Medicare beneficiaries be homebound in order to be eligible for home health benefits reflects an outmoded view of life for persons who are elderly or live with disabilities. The legislation I am introducing attempts to correct this problem. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. I hope we can make this change, which will make a real difference for millions of disabled and elderly Medicare beneficiaries. The homebound criteria for home health may have made sense thirty years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might expect to live in the confines of their home, perhaps cared for by an extended family. The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals--like Mr. Jayne--which allows them brief periods of relative wellness. It also fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity and physical stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the body and mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four walls of a home. The legislation that we are introducing today will amend the homebound definition to base eligibility for the home health benefit on the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition, rather than on an arbitrary limitation on absences from the home. It would retain the requirements in current law that the individual must have either a condition, due to illness or injury, that restricts the ability of the individual to leave his or her home except with the assistance of another individual or the aid of a supportive device; or a condition such that leaving his or her home is medically contraindicated. In addition, the condition of the individual must still be such that ``there exists a normal inability to leave home'' and that ``leaving home requires a considerable and taxing effort.'' Under our legislation, however, the current arbitrary requirement that patients be allowed ``only infrequent absences of short duration'' from the home would be dropped. Our legislation builds upon major improvements in the definition of homebound that were initiated in the last Congress by Senator Jeffords, Reed and others which specifically allow Medicare patients to leave the home to attend religious services and participate in adult day care. Our proposal is supported by the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, the National Association for Home Care, and the Visiting Nurses Association of America. It is also consistent with President Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' which has, as its goal, the removal of barriers that impede opportunities for those with disabilities to integrate more fully into the community. By allowing reasonable absences from the home, our legislation will bring the Medicare home health benefit into the 21st century, and we encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2085 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2077 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes.