Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would oppose the amendment of my friend from Texas. I understand that she has agreed not to offer the amendment, and instead to just debate the issue at this time. As I noted yesterday, when a similar amendment was offered by the Senator from New York, formula fights are never easy. But they deserve careful deliberation and consideration. An appropriations bill is where Congress spends money once it has settled on a formula in authorizing legislation. An appropriations bill is not the right place to have a formula fight. My friend from Texas has raised an issue that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Government Affairs Committee, which has held three hearings on this topic this year. We have heard from firefighters, police officers, mayors, governors, State emergency management directors, county officials, and Secretary Ridge. As a result of these hearings, I have developed legislation, on a bipartisan basis, with Senator Carper and 15 other cosponsors. Just last month, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved this legislation by a unanimous vote. My legislation would address the very issue that the amendment of the Senator from Texas seeks to address on this appropriations bill. I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Texas because it would pre-empt a debate that we began in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that should continue when our legislation reaches the Senate floor. But I also oppose this amendment because it is bad for Maine--and States across the country. And because I believe it could compromise the security of this great Nation. This amendment would not only reduce the small State minimum from .75 to .5 percent of the amount appropriated, but it would also make the small State minimum a ceiling, rather than a floor, which it is in current law, and should remain. Moreover, big States already get plenty under the bill that Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have so ably crafted. The bill distributes $1.75 billion to all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Of this amount, $1.05 billion, or 60 percent, will be distributed strictly based on population, meaning more populous states do well. In addition, however, the bill sets aside $750 million just for big cities. That means states such as Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alaska will not see a dime of this money--$750 million just for the country's biggest cities--$250 million more than the House appropriated. And yet big States want more. The Senate should not be considering these kinds of authorizing changes to an appropriations bill. I know it is tempting to offer amendments like this to appropriations measures--I considered offering my grants bill, or parts of it, as amendments--but the practice must be resisted. It does an end-run around authorizing committees, which are set up to address matters such as these in a deliberate, thorough manner. Any modifications to ODP's formula should be considered in a comprehensive manner, not as piecemeal amendments. By changing the formula on an ad-hoc basis, we may produce unintended consequences, where a State may end up with insufficient homeland security resources. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose changes to the existing funding formula on this bill. At the same time, I pledge to work with my friend from Texas to accommodate her legitimate concerns. Big States have big homeland security needs, and the Federal Government has an obligation to help them.

Ms. COLLINS. I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New Mexico of the situation with respect to the training of our Federal law enforcement officers and I am pleased to pledge to work with the Senator to address the problem he has presented. In fact, I believe S. 1245, which was recently reported unanimously out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, may provide the appropriate vehicle for making this change.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the sense-of-the- Senate amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York today. The Senator's amendment is on a subject of great importance to each and every Senator, and that is how best to divide up the homeland security funds to ensure we get the most from the resources we are investing. It is a subject that falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair. The committee held three hearings on this topic. We have heard from firefighters, police officers, mayors, Governors, State emergency management directors, county officials, and from Secretary Ridge. As a result of these hearings, I developed bipartisan legislation, which the committee has unanimously approved. That legislation is cosponsored by Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, Akaka, Hagel, Burns, Chafee, Roberts, Dorgan, Chambliss, and Ben Nelson. In other words, it has widespread support. Dealing with formula issues is very difficult. They are not easy. They affect us all and we want to make sure we get it right. The legislation we reported last month addresses the very issues the Senator from New York has brought up and is seeking to address on the appropriations bill. There is much I agree with in the amendment of the Senator from New York. I don't agree with her treatment of small States, because although she keeps the small-State minimum, as I read the language, she would treat the current .75 allocation as a ceiling. That is not the way it would be done under the legislation I have authored, nor is that the way that small States are handled under current law. But there is much I agree with in the Senator's approach. We need to identify high-threat areas and we need to do vulnerability assessments. That means looking at military installations, ports, and looking at whether the State is a border State. There are many issues that need to be considered. Our legislation carefully crafts a formula and fills out the outlines of the homeland security grants, which were treated only in a single paragraph in the original legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. We have made sure the money is passed on quickly, for example, from States to local governments and to the first responders. We have simplified the application process from 12 steps to 2. We have done away with a mountain of the paperwork and bureaucracy that has frustrated our State and local governments. And, yes, we call for an allocation right off the top for high-threat areas and for vulnerability assessments. Any modifications to the formulas for homeland security grants should be considered in a comprehensive, careful manner, as the committee has done. If the committee had not acted on this important issue, I would be more sympathetic to the arguments made by the Senator from New York. But, in fact, the committee has acted. We have held several hearings. We have reported legislation, which is pending for consideration by the full Senate. If we attempt to change the formula on an ad hoc basis, we may end up with unintended consequences and a State may end up with insufficient homeland security resources. We obviously are very stressed because of budget constraints. We need to make sure the formula is carefully done. I believe the appropriations bill is not the right vehicle to pass important authorizing legislation affecting the allocation of funds. For this reason, I have not sought to attach my own bill to the appropriations vehicle, nor pieces of it, tempted though I am. Nor do I think the well-intentioned amendment of the Senator from New York, which calls for a change in the funding formula, which is directly in the jurisdiction of my committee, should be adopted on this appropriations bill. I want to make an offer to the Senator from New York to work closely with her. New York obviously has challenges that are enormous when it comes to homeland security. I am very sympathetic to what a high-risk, high-vulnerability State the Senator so ably represents. So I want to work with her further on this as we bring our legislation to the floor. But I am reluctantly going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate amendment of the Senator from New York because, frankly, it doesn't belong on this bill, particularly when the committee of jurisdiction has acted to bring forth carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation to deal with this very issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee for his generous and kind comments. He has been wonderful to work with on this issue, as every other. We are very fortunate to have him leading this essential subcommittee.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Democratic assistant leader for his assistance in this matter. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which will help us to better protect communities across America. I congratulate Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran for putting together a bill that fairly balances the many responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security. I also thank Senator Stevens for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the Senate floor. This legislation, I believe, will give Secretary Ridge, State and local officials, and first responders the tools they need to build a more effective homeland security structure. Protecting this vast and diverse Nation is an enormous task, but our people--from Washington, DC, to the small border communities in northern Maine--have the skills, ingenuity, and the spirit to get the job done. On March 1 of this year, the foundation for this new structure was laid as 22 separate Federal agencies and Departments were merged into the new Department of Homeland Security. Creating a new Department is, however, just a start. Each State has its own security challenges, and every community has its own needs. My home State of Maine must protect a long and remote stretch of our northern border. Our enormous coastline is lined with small harbors, three deep-water cargo ports--one of which is the largest tonnage port in all of New England--and two ports that regularly welcome passengers from around the world. We have two international airports in Maine, one of which played a most unwelcome role in the events of September 11. This legislation will provide more than $29 billion in fiscal year 2004 to fund the Federal Government security efforts and to help each of our States meet its particular needs. It includes $8.2 billion to protect our Nation's borders, including funding for an additional 600 border agents and the development of innovative new security technologies. I am pleased that under the leadership of Senator Cochran the Appropriations Committee has provided more than $60 million for the Container Security Initiative. I know from a hearing held by the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, that this partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and our shipping industry to target high-risk containers will help to better protect our ports from terrorist attacks. The legislation also provides more than $5 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including $1.8 billion for passenger screening and $150 million for port security grants. These grants provide important security upgrades to help protect an industry that is absolutely vital for our economic prosperity. I am pleased that Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have agreed to many of the suggestions I have forwarded to them for upgrading our Nation's Coast Guard. This legislation provides $6.8 billion for Coast Guard operations, including $702 million for the Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which is vital to helping the Coast Guard carry out its traditional missions even as it meets its new and enhanced responsibilities for homeland security. This legislation also maintains our commitment to America's first responders--our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency medical personnel--who are on the front lines of the war against terrorism. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made helping first responders a top priority. The needs of our first responders are as varied as the communities they protect. If there is a local emergency, citizens do not call Washington, they call 911. It is our first responders who are truly on the front lines in protecting our communities and in responding to any sort of terrorist attack. The $3.6 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness, including $1.75 billion for State and local homeland security grants and $750 million for fire grants, is vital to the success of our first responders. These programs will provide them with better communications equipment, more firetrucks, and more exercises in training to do what they do best--prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other emergencies. But appropriating the funds, while essential, does not complete the job. We must also get these funds where they are needed quickly and efficiently. I have spoken to officials from communities around the State of Maine, to the mayor of Baltimore, and to officials throughout the Nation about the existing grant programs to assist our first responders. They are grateful for the grants, but frustrated by the bureaucracy, the time-consuming, complicated, and rigid application process, and the mountain of paperwork. After holding several hearings on this topic in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I introduced, with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003. This legislation would provide a steady ongoing stream of funding to each and every State. It will simplify the grant process. It will promote flexibility in the use of homeland security funds so they can be targeted to the greatest need. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation which has been reported unanimously by the committee. This will help us streamline and strengthen the way we provide assistance to those on the front lines. Finally, I add my strong support for the $3.6 billion included in this legislation for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, including $2 billion for disaster relief and $153 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program. As with any appropriations bill, one can argue about funding levels or that a certain program deserves more money than another. That is also true with this legislation. For example, I would like to have seen more funding for first responders and port security. But given the constraints on the Federal budget, I believe the managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member, have done an extraordinary job. This legislation spends homeland security dollars in an effective, efficient manner. By providing more training and equipment to our first responders, more equipment and funding to secure our ports, and additional resources to protect our borders, this legislation gets the maximum benefit out of the Federal budget, out of the Federal resources available with the constraints under which we are operating. Again, I congratulate the chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member for putting together an excellent piece of legislation that fairly addresses the diverse needs of our States and communities. I urge quick passage of the legislation so that the Department of Homeland Security and those throughout our homeland can continue to work together more effectively on the crucial tasks that lie ahead as we seek to better secure our Nation. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations and best wishes to Virginia Davis Gill, Ph.D., on the occasion of her 90th birthday. Born on July 17, 1913, Dr. Gill has dedicated her life to public service. Her career as a social worker, a school teacher, and a health administrator spanned over seven decades, reflecting Dr. Gill's commitment to serving her community. Indeed, Dr. Gill did not retire until she was 75 years of age. Throughout her career, Dr. Gill's leadership included active involvement in the American Red Cross and serving as a national board member of United Cerebral Palsy. Following her retirement, Dr. Gill was selected to attend the 1995 White House Conference on Aging. Dr. Gill lives in my home State of Maine, but she is loved here in Washington, DC, as well. Our own Attending Physician of the Capitol, the distinguished Dr. John Eisold, is presenting an American flag to his longtime friend to honor her birthday. Together with Dr. Gill's brother, Mr. Wadsworth Davis, and her son, Mr. Walter Gill, I join in saluting the life of this remarkable woman and in wishing her the happiest of birthdays.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for including provisions in S. 1 that will provide a measure of relief to rural health care providers, and in particular to home health agencies serving patients in rural areas. I am concerned, however, that the underlying bill does not go quite far enough and have filed an amendment with Senator Bond to increase the rural add-on payment for home health agencies to 10 percent. This was the amount of the payment prior to its expiration on April 1, and I believe it is the amount that is necessary to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services that they need. Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically complex--services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be-- in the comfort and security of their own homes. Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the longer travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits in a day as their urban counterparts. Saundra Scott-Adams, the executive director of the Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in Aroostook County, ME, where I am from, tells me her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 72,000. Her costs are understandably much higher than the average agency due to the long distances her staff must drive to see clients. And, her staff is not able to see as many patients. Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher due to smaller scale operations. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a smaller number of patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit costs. Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care than their urban counterparts, and are understandably more expensive for agencies to serve. If the rural add-on payment is not reinstated, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept rural patients with greater care needs, and access will suffer further. The loss of the rural add-on has already caused many agencies to reduce their service areas. Some are eliminating services altogether in remote areas. There are some counties in Montana, for example, that have no home health services. And agencies in my home State of Maine have had to eliminate delivery of services to some of our outlying islands. If the 10 percent rural add-on payment is not restored, it will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins and could force more of these agencies to close. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in a vast geographic area. If any of these agencies are forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region will lose complete access to home care. There is strong support in the Senate for restoring the rural add-on. Earlier this month, 55 Senators joined me in sending a letter to the chair and ranking member of the senate Finance Committee urging that they extend the 10 per cent rural add-on for home health agencies, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. The chairman of the Finance Committee and his staff have been working with us to try to accommodate my amendment, and I am very appreciative of their efforts. I am hopeful that we will be able to work this out so that we will be able to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services that they need.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I was pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Boxer, Coleman, Landrieu, Kohl & Murray in offering an amendment to authorize a Medicare demonstration project on pancreatic islet cell transplantation to help advance this tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for more than 1 million Americans with Type 1 or juvenile diabetes. As the founder and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of chairing a hearing featuring young delegates from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Children's Congress who had traveled to Washington from every State in the country to tell Congress what it is like to have diabetes, just how serious it is, and how important it is that we find a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, lifelong condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. It is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, a study released by the American Diabetes Association earlier this year estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year and that health spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes. The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for people with juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow. In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing life- threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their quality of life. Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured and will be cured. I am encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the 257 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year. Amazingly, many of the transplant recipients have even reported a reversal of some of their complications, such as improved vision and less pain from neuropathy. Earlier this year, I joined with my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance this significant research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with juvenile diabetes. The amendment we are introducing today is based on one of the provisions of that bill, which currently has 43 Senate cosponsors. Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for 40 percent of new cases, and a significant percentage of individuals with Type 1 diabetes will experience kidney failure and become Medicare-eligible before they are 65. Medicare currently covers both kidney transplants and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants for these individuals. To help Medicare decide whether it should cover pancreatic islet cell transplants, the amendment authorizes a 5-year demonstration project to test the efficacy of pancreatic islet cell transplantation for individuals with Type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease, ESRD. The cost of this demonstration would not be high. The Health Strategies Consultancy LLC, a highly regarded independent health policy firm, estimates that the net Federal cost of the proposal would be about $6.2 million in 2004 and about $84 million over 10 years. The cost of the demonstration project is low because the number of islet cell transplants that could be performed is limited. Islet cells are extracted from a donated pancreas, and the number of pancreas donors is extremely small when compared to the number of Medicare beneficiaries who could benefit from islet cell transplants. In 2002, there were 1,875 pancreas donations, but there were over 27,000 Medicare beneficiaries who have diabetes as the primary cause of their end-stage renal disease and who might potentially benefit from islet cell transplants. The Health Strategies' cost estimate does not include the financial benefits that would accrue to Medicare for the reduced medical care costs that would occur for beneficiaries who receive islet cell transplants and, as a result, suffer fewer diabetes-related complications such as kidney failure, heart disease, blindness and amputation. Since diabetes currently accounts for one out of every four Medicare dollars, I believe that this amendment actually holds much promise for reducing Medicare spending in the future. I understand this demonstration project has been included in the Medicare prescription drug legislation that is being considered by the House. I hope that the Senate demonstrates similar wisdom, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations to the town of Gray, Maine, as it celebrates its 225th anniversary. This charming town of 7,000 people boasts the first woolen mill in the United States. But even more important is Gray's contribution to our country during the Civil War. Gray sacrificed a greater percentage of men to this cause than any other town in the State of Maine. The Gray Celebration Days festival begins today, and I am pleased to acknowledge this special event, which celebrates the history of this outstanding Maine community.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue. He is an extraordinarily talented chairman of the HELP Committee who was able to bring people together on both sides of the aisle. This is yet another example of an outstanding achievement of the chairman, working together to benefit the people of this country. I do miss serving on the HELP Committee. I enjoyed the many issues the committee addresses, and this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend not only Chairman Gregg, but also Senators Schumer, McCain, and Kennedy, for all of their hard work on this comprehensive proposal. The amendment we are offering today will make prescription drugs more affordable by promoting competition in the pharmaceutical industry to increase access to lower priced generic drugs while at the same time protecting innovation and preserving the incentives for companies to make the investments necessary to develop newer, better, and safer pharmaceuticals. This amendment, which is based on legislation I joined Senators Schumer and McCain in introducing earlier this year, will make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that our original proposal would have cut our Nation's drug costs by some $60 billion over the next 10 years, and I understand this compromise proposal is also expected to result in similar savings. I will repeat that. There are very few bills we are ever going to consider that will result in cutting our Nation's health care costs. This proposal, according to the CBO, will help reduce the cost of prescription drugs by some $60 billion over the next decade. At a time when we are modernizing Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit, it is very important that this legislation be passed to help moderate the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending in the United States has increased by 92 percent over the past 5 years. These soaring costs are a particular burden for millions of uninsured Americans, as well as for seniors on Medicare who now lack prescription drug coverage. Many of these individuals are simply priced out of the market or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the pills that keep them healthy. Skyrocketing prescription drug costs are also putting the squeeze on our Nation's employers, who are struggling in the face of double-digit annual premium increases to continue to provide health insurance for their employees. They are exacerbating the Medicaid funding crisis that all of us are hearing about from our Governors back home as they struggle to bridge shortfalls in their States' budgets. The 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act made significant changes in our patent laws that were intended to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the investments necessary to develop new drug products while enabling their competitors to bring lower priced generic alternatives to the market. We should acknowledge that, toward that end, the Hatch-Waxman Act has succeeded to a large degree. Prior to the Hatch-Waxman Act passing, it took 3 to 5 years for generics to enter the marketplace after a brand name patent expired. Today, lower cost generics often enter the market immediately upon the expiration of the patent. As a consequence, consumers are saving anywhere from $8 billion to $10 billion a year by purchasing lower priced generic drugs. There are even greater potential savings on the horizon. Within the next few years, the patents on brand name drugs with combined sales of $20 billion are set to expire. If the Hatch-Waxman Act were to work as it was intended, consumers could expect to save between 50 to 60 percent on these drugs as lower cost generics became available as these patents expired. Despite its past success, however, it has become increasingly apparent that our patent laws in the Hatch-Waxman Act have been subject to abuse. While many pharmaceutical companies have acted in good faith, there is mounting evidence that some manufacturers have attempted to game the system by exploiting legal loopholes in the current law. Too many pharmaceutical companies have maximized their profits at the expense of consumers by filing frivolous patents that have delayed access to the lower priced generics. Currently, brand name companies can delay a generic drug from going to market for years. A ``new'' patent for an existing drug can be awarded for merely changing the color of the pill or its packaging. There were examples cited by the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee last year. One case involved the producer of a heart medication which brought a lawsuit for patent and trademark infringement against the generic manufacturer in early 1996. Instead of asking the generic company to pay damages, however, the brand name manufacturer offered a settlement to pay the generic company more than $80 million in return for keeping the generic drug off the market. In the meantime, the consumers of this heart medication, which treats high blood pressure, chest pains, and heart disease, were paying about $73 a month, while the generic would have cost them only $32 a month. Last July, the FTC released a long-awaited report that found that brand name drug manufacturers had misused the loopholes to delay the entry of lower cost generics into the market. The FTC found that these tactics led to delays of between 4 and 40 months--that is over and above the first 30-month stay provided under the Hatch-Waxman Act--for generic competitors of at least eight drugs since 1992. The FTC report pointed to two specific provisions of our patent laws--the automatic 30-month stay and the 180-day market exclusivity for the first generic to file a patent challenge--as being particularly vulnerable to strategies that could delay the entry of lower cost generics into the market. And it is precisely those two provisions which this carefully crafted compromise, which the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer, and Senator McCain have crafted, it is precisely those provisions that would be solved, and those loopholes would be closed by the amendment we are offering today. The bipartisan amendment we are offering would restore the balance in the current laws. It would close the loopholes that have reduced the original law's effectiveness in bringing lower cost generic drugs to market more quickly. Again, I salute the chairman for the tremendous work that was done on this important proposal. I am delighted it is being offered. I am proud to be a cosponsor. This will make a real difference in the drug bill, not only for consumers, not only for seniors, but employers, State governments, or anyone who is purchasing prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today the Senate begins a truly historic debate on landmark legislation that will make affordable, comprehensive prescription drug benefits available to our Nation's seniors as well as to people with disabilities who receive Medicare benefits. This legislation is long overdue, but I am confident the Senate will, in fact, approve it before the Fourth of July. That is good news for our Nation's seniors. The Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act that the Finance Committee approved last week represents the most significant expansion of the Medicare Program in its 38-year history. I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and the other members of the Finance Committee, including my senior colleague, Senator Snowe, for their hard work in devising and developing this important package. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to make the improvements necessary to ensure that the Medicare Program can provide peace of mind to our Nation's seniors and true health security, not only to the 40 million American seniors who rely on Medicare today but to future generations as well. We want a strong Medicare Program that meets the needs of our grandparents, our parents, and our children's generation. With recent advances in research, prescription drugs can become literally a lifeline for patients whose drug regimen protects them from becoming sicker. Prescription drugs reduce the need to treat serious illness through hospitalization and surgery. Soaring prescription drug costs, however, have placed a tremendous financial burden on millions of our seniors who must pay for these necessary drugs out of their own pockets. Monthly drug bills of $300, $400, or even $500 are not at all uncommon for older seniors living on limited incomes. For example, Emery Jensen of Gorham, ME, has an annual drug bill of about $4,600. That is about one-quarter of the entire income he and his wife receive from Social Security. Another constituent from coastal Maine sent me a 2-page list of the medications her husband took over an 8-month period before he died. The total cost: Nearly $4,000. More and more, I am hearing disturbing accounts of older Americans who are running up huge high-interest credit card bills in order to buy medicine they could not otherwise afford. Even more alarming are the accounts of patients who are either skipping doses to stretch out their prescriptions or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the pills that keep them healthy. I will never forget an elderly woman coming up to me in the grocery store in Bangor and saying to me she was only able to get half the number of pills her doctor had prescribed because otherwise she would not be able to buy the food she needed. No senior in our country should be forced to choose between putting food on their table and buying the pills they need to remain healthy. It is critical we bring Medicare into line with most private sector insurance plans and expand the program to include coverage for prescription drugs. The legislation before the Senate today will make prescription drug coverage a permanent part of Medicare. This is an important improvement over previous versions of this bill which had sunset dates which would have created tremendous anxiety for our seniors on whether this would be only a temporary program. This bill will make this coverage permanently part of Medicare. It provides a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that will be available to all seniors in Medicare, regardless of where they live. Moreover, that benefit will be equal for everyone, both for those who choose to stay in the traditional program as well as for those seniors who elect one of the new programs, the new plan options available in the Medicare Advantage Program which is modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Beginning in 2006, seniors will be able to get comprehensive prescription drug coverage, including both upfront and catastrophic protection, for $35 a month premium. Moreover, low-income seniors will receive generous subsidies and get additional protections and assistance. The more than 9 million seniors nationwide, including 60,000 seniors living in Maine, who have incomes below 135 percent of the poverty level will not have to pay any premium to secure coverage. That 135 percent of poverty equals $12,120 for a single person and $16,360 for a couple. It is important we provide that extra assistance for these very low income elderly people who would be hard pressed even to afford that $35 a month. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen overnight. It will take some time for this new benefit to come online. To provide some interim assistance, starting next year seniors will get prescription drug discount cards that will save them between 15 and 25 percent on each drug purchase. Lower income seniors will receive a benefit of $600 on top of that starting next year. There are also some other significant features in this bill. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor large urban areas and failed to take into account the needs of more rural States. This simply is not fair to States such as New Hampshire, which the Presiding Officer represents so ably, or my home State of Maine. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing cost effective high-quality care. We have a strange system where, if you delivered care in a low-cost manner, the formula actually penalizes you for doing so. In the early 1980s, lower than average costs in Maine were used to justify lower Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low- and high-cost States. This is an issue on which I have been working my entire time in the Senate. I remember in the previous administration meeting with the head of what was then called the Health Care Financing Administration and her telling me that in fact the State of Maine ranked dead last in Medicare reimbursements. Since that time, I have worked hard to improve the reimbursements to Maine, and now we are up to about 46, but that still represents a tremendous inequity. I am, therefore, particularly pleased the legislation before the Senate takes steps to strengthen the health care safety net by increasing Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals in rural States such as Maine to help even out the reimbursement and eliminate the inequities that have hurt rural States. According to the American Hospital Association, the provisions in this bill will increase Medicare payments to hospitals in Maine by approximately $63 million over the next 10 years. That is a step in the right direction. It will be particularly helpful for our small community hospitals which are struggling to make ends meet. Those same hospitals tend to serve a population that is older, poorer, and sicker, so they particularly suffer when Medicare reimbursements are unfair because they simply do not cover the cost of treating this older, poorer, sicker population. This legislation also restores funding to some extent for home health. That benefit has been cut far more deeply and abruptly than any benefit in the history of the Medicare Program. Earlier this month, 54 Senators, at my request, joined me in sending a letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee asking that they avoid any further cuts in home health care and extend the additional payment for home health services in rural areas that expired on April 1 of this year. I am pleased the legislation before the Senate does provide for a full inflation update for home health agencies and also extends the rural add-on that is vital to sustaining home health care in rural areas of our country. Surveys have shown the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. While I am disappointed the Finance Committee reduced the add-on payment from 10 percent to 5 percent, at least it has been extended, and that will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to home health care services. The Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act was approved by the Finance Committee by a strong 16 to 5 bipartisan vote. I think that bodes very well for the future of this legislation. At long last, this legislation holds out real hope to our seniors that they will finally receive an affordable, comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. Since the cost of providing a meaningful drug benefit will only increase as time passes, it is imperative that we act now. I am pleased the majority leader has scheduled this legislation and set a goal of its passage before we adjourn for the July 4 recess. Our senior citizens deserve no less from us. We must act. I am confident we will act to provide a long overdue prescription drug benefit. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over provisions included in the Senate Energy bill that threaten the existing moratoria on leasing and preleasing activities related to oil drilling on Georges Bank, off the coast of Maine, and other areas of the outer continental shelf. Section 105 of the Energy bill requires the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire outer continental shelf. This provision would allow potentially damaging seismic technology in the vital fishing grounds of Georges Bank. Georges Bank is a magnificent American resource. The unusual underwater topography and tidal activity of Georges Bank create an almost self-contained ecosystem, unique within the ocean that surrounds it. It is one of the most productive fisheries in the world, where Mainers and many others harvest cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, scallops, lobsters, swordfish, and herring. Mainers have fished Georges Bank for hundreds of years. Hundreds of small communities in New England depend on fish from Georges Bank for economic support and their maritime-based way of life. In recent years, Maine's fishermen have made significant economic sacrifices to work toward sustainable and healthy fish stocks. I am extremely worried that any drilling activities, even preleasing activities, could destroy their work. An oil spill on Georges Bank would have catastrophic effects on the Georges Bank ecosystem and the economies of the coastal communities of New England. Georges Bank experiences some of the most severe weather in the world, and the frequent storms, strong currents, and high winds would cripple any post-spill cleanup effort. For this reason, and because of its great biological value, many scientists, fishermen, and other persons concerned with and knowledgeable about the unique ecosystem of Georges Bank have urged that no drilling activities occur in this region. I have long worked to protect Georges Bank from the potentially devastating impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling. In 1999, when the Government of Canada was considering whether or not to drill on Georges Bank, I introduced a resolution in the Senate that asked the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on drilling on the Canadian side of Georges Bank until 2012. I was very relieved when, several months later, Canada did indeed impose such a moratorium. The United States also has a moratorium on drilling Georges Bank until 2012. This issue again arose in May of 2001, when the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee recommended to the Secretary of the Interior that she encourage congressional funding to assess the oil and gas potential of offshore areas covered by the moratorium. The recommendations also included a suggestion to explore lifting parts of the existing moratorium. In response, I worked to include language in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the use of funds for offshore preleasing, leasing, or related activity on Georges Bank. Along with Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Snowe, I cosponsored an amendment that prohibits the Department of the Interior from spending any funds on leasing, preleasing, or related activities in Georges Bank and the entire North Atlantic, as well as the West Coast off California, Oregon, and Washington, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Our amendment was signed into law, and similar language has been included in subsequent Interior Appropriations bills. I believe that Section 105 of the Energy bill is contradictory to the Interior Appropriations bill language and the expressed will of the Senate against the expenditure of funds for the use of preleasing activities in Georges Bank. I am pleased to join Senators Graham, Feinstein, Dole, and many others in cosponsoring an amendment that will remove these provisions from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Friday, June 13, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 218, the nomination of R. Hewitt Pate to be an Assistant Attorney General; provided further that the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, Executive Item No. 223 is the nomination of John Woodcock to be a District Judge for the District of Maine. I am very pleased to rise tonight to speak on his behalf. Maine's senior Senator, Olympia Snowe, and I are very proud to have recommended John for this prestigious position on the Federal bench. I have known John Woodcock for many years. John, in fact, recruited me several years ago to serve as a trustee on the board of the Eastern Maine Medical Center, which he has chaired for 23 years. This is typical of John's service to his community. He has devoted countless hours volunteering his time and energy to his alma mater, Bowdoin College; Eastern Maine Charities; the Maine State Commission on Arts and Humanities; the Good Samaritan Agency; and the Bangor Children's Home, to name just a few. The Woodcock family has a proud tradition of public service that spans generations. In fact, two of John's sons have served as members of my staff. Jack currently serves on my Governmental Affairs Committee staff, while Patrick works as a college intern in my Bangor office. I once remarked to John--and repeated it at the Judiciary Committee hearing, which the Presiding Officer chaired that day--that his sons' hard work and professional demeanor were proof that the apple does not fall far from the tree. After the hearing, John wrote to me, in his typically gracious and unassuming and self-effacing way, and said in his mind the tree has always been his wife, Beverly. Lest John's modesty hide his extensive accomplishments, let me take just a moment to share with my colleagues his qualifications to be a Federal judge. John began practicing law nearly 30 years ago and has built a distinguished career as a litigator. He has served as an assistant district attorney for the State of Maine and has worked in private practice as an associate and as a partner of several law firms in the great State of Maine. In 1991, he joined several colleagues to form the Bangor law firm of Weatherbee, Woodcock, Burlock & Woodcock. During his career, John has served as lead counsel in 47 separate appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on issues ranging from trust law to criminal law. John has also taken an active role in improving the standards of the legal profession, serving, for example, on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Professional Responsibility. As a member of this committee, John worked to draft a series of aspirational goals to help guide lawyers who elect to advertise with their professional obligations in this area. Those of us who are familiar with John Woodcock's sterling character and stellar legal career were not surprised when the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him as ``well qualified''--the highest possible rating. Indeed, it would be difficult for Senator Snowe and I to come up with another candidate better suited to serve as a Federal judge in the State of Maine. The Senate Judiciary Committee also voted unanimously to approve his nomination on June 5. Mr. President, John has the legal excellence, the temperament, and the integrity to serve on the Federal bench. I have every confidence he will faithfully follow the law as interpreted by higher courts and that he will bring justice to the parties before him. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support John Woodcock's nomination for a Federal district court judgeship, and I urge my colleagues, in voting this evening, to confirm this terrific individual.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: No. 223 and on the Secretary's Desk, PN443 and PN182.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka. Last year, 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. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated for another day. Today is that day. Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the legislation we introduce today. At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our communities. Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions. Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to help first responders get the resources they need. Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs are organized within the Department, and the way the Department distributes these grants. The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs. Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of forms and planning documents. Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under no requirement to coordinate their efforts. While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or directly to the local level. I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local organizations including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the local level. Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the approach we have taken. The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well- marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to emergencies. Second, the legislation would 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. The clearinghouse would 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. The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of communications equipment. The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds. The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant program. And this program is just one of several homeland security grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department can apply. The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development of measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary. This legislation would ensure that local government officials and first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant allocation. When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity. Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities. Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under this program. While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments undertaken for each State. Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities answering the same question six different ways. That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans. When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State. In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs. As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent. The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line defenders. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Specter, Bingaman, and Alexander, in offering this amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day by the year 2013. This is a very reasonable and achievable goal, and I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for coming up with this initiative and reaching out to those of us who share her concern that our Nation is too dependent on foreign oil. Increasing energy efficiency is the single most effective way to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Without a greater focus on energy- efficiency measures, the Energy legislation before us, which has many valuable provisions, will not be effective in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. As long as we continue to guzzle foreign oil, we will be at the mercy of those nations that control that oil. We are already nearly 60-percent reliant on foreign sources, and the Energy Information Administration projects that our dependence will increase to 70 percent by the year 2010 if we do not act. If we do not do more to improve the energy efficiency standards, America will only grow more dependent on foreign oil and the price of gas and home heating oil will only rise accordingly. Our amendment would help to reduce oil consumption by a million barrels a day by the year 2013. It would do so by giving the President the flexibility to decide among any number of simple energy saving measures to achieve these savings. For example, simply weatherizing homes which use home heating oil could save 80,000 barrels of oil per day. Using energy-efficient engine oil could save another 100,000 barrels per day. Just keeping our tires on our automobiles properly inflated could save 200,000 barrels per day. In short, by taking a few easily adopted measures, we could reduce our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day. We currently use about 19 million barrels a day. So this would make a real difference. It would result in a reduction of consumption of imported oil. Reducing our consumption by 1 million barrels per day will also help to keep energy prices down and will keep billions of American dollars at home where they belong. In fact, this proposal we have advanced could save American consumers upwards of $20 billion each year. I call upon my colleagues to join us today in supporting our commonsense measure to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by reducing our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day. It is right for our environment. It is right for our economy. It is right for the American consumer. I yield the floor. amendment no. 865

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of their forest lands because we understand and appreciate its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of undeveloped land in the north, to the small woodlots in the south, forest land has helped to shape the character and the heritage of my State. While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forests for generations, there is a new and troubling thereat to Maine's forest lands that requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl. It has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in the southern part of my State. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forests or crop land cannot compete with the value of developed land. This problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where there has been more than a 100-percent increase in urbanized sprawl over the past two decades. This has resulted in the labeling of the greater Portland area as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.'' I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul- de-sacs. Our State is working to respond to this challenge because once that land is paved over, it is gone forever. Those forest lands and those small woodlots are lost forever once that land is developed. The people of Maine in response to this concern have approved a $50 million bond issue to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future Board. They have also worked hard supporting local efforts to preserve open space. And they have contributed their time, their energy, and their money to the work done by our State's 88 land trusts. The people of my State are dedicated to preserving our working forests and protecting our communities from sprawl. It is now time for the Federal Government to lend a helping hand in support of those efforts. Today, I am introducing the Suburban Community Forestry and Open Space Act. This legislation, which was drafted with the advice of landowners, conservation groups, and the Maine State Forester, establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally driven projects that will preserve our working forests. Local governments and nonprofit organizations would compete for funds to purchase land outright or to buy conservation easements to keep the forest land threatened by development in their traditional use. Projects funded under this legislation must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. The legislation requires that Federal funds be matched dollar for dollar by State, local, or private resources so that it is a true partnership to preserve this open space and working forests. This grant program would help to promote sustainable forestry as well as public access to our forest lands. My legislation protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing seller'' provision, which requires the consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is eligible to participate in the program. The grant program would also allow nonprofits and municipalities, but not the Federal Government, to hold title to the land or the easements purchased under this program. The $50 million is a modest amount but it would help to achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, my legislation would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve our working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine most significant industry. Second, the resources made available by my legislation would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl. Currently, if a community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turns to the Federal Government for help, they would find that no assistance is available. The Forest Legacy Program, which has been critical in preserving undeveloped forest land in my State and many others, is really not suitable for the kinds of projects my bill envisions. My bill would change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest lands and managing sprawl, while leaving the decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs. Last year, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate-approved version of the farm bill which passed this Senate by a vote of 58-40. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the farm bill conference report, despite bipartisan support for provisions such as my legislation. There is a great deal that needs to be done to protect our working forests for the next generation. I believe the legislation I am reintroducing today will help advance that goal. I am grateful for the support of many of the people and organizations that are leading the effort to support this legislation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide a real boost to local conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record several letters of support for my legislation. They are from the National Association of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, The Trust for Public Land, and the Pacific Forest Trust. I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment offered today by Chairman Grassley, and to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have risen today in support of it. I have long been a supporter of the refundable child credit. I was a leading proponent of the increase in the child tax credit for low-income families that was enacted as part of the 2001 tax bill, and I strongly supported this provision when it was added to the Senate version of the Tax Act passed last month. The economic growth package the President signed into law last week gives tax relief to all working Americans, including low-income families, many of whom will see a substantial reduction in their taxes. But some low-income families could not receive the benefit of the increased child tax credit that the package provides because the 10 percent earned-income threshold was not accelerated to 15 percent as the Senate version of the package provided. This amendment restores the acceleration of that threshold as this Chamber originally provided. More than 119,000 Mainers will benefit from the increase in the child tax credit that we approved as part of economic growth package. The action we take today expands the reach of this assistance to thousands more hard-working Maine families. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was keenly aware that nearly 200,000 enlisted men and women could claim this credit for their children if we expanded the guidelines. Doing so sends exactly the right message of appreciation as many of them return home from fighting for the cause of freedom in Iraq.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the ``National Security Personnel System Act,'' be printed in the Record.