Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to S. 279 be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc.

Ms. COLLINS. I now ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of H.R. 794, S. 706, and S. 279.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I further ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to en bloc consideration of the following bills introduced earlier today: S. 1480, S. 1481, S. 1482, S. 1483, S. 1484, and S. 1485.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments now be set aside.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesy. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and on behalf of the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, I call up three amendments that are at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would accept the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is a very important issue to many of us. I understand the chairman and the ranking member did debate this issue at some length last week. I am sure the chairman is correct in saying we would all benefit from reading that colloquy as we prepare to debate these issues further and ultimately cast our votes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and mine. Recent portrayals of the commercial fishing industry in film and in literature have provided the American public with glimpses of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living from the sea. These stories and movies merely scratch the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike, often without notice. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations, often as the most dangerous occupation. Between the years of 1992, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling occupational safety statistics, and 2003, 756 commercial fishing-related fatalities have been documented. This profession is roughly 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation. Too often, commercial fishing has proved tragic throughout our coastal waters including the north Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the north Atlantic. The New England fishing community is no stranger to heartbreak. The 2004-2005 winter proved no exception, with the December 20, 2004 sinking of the Northern Edge. Five fishermen were lost during this incident, which was the worst loss of life in the New England fishing community since 1991. One fisherman, Pedro Furtado, was saved when the Northern Edge went down. Pedro was able to locate a life raft, to which he clung for half an hour in high winds and freezing temperatures before being rescued by the crew of a nearby scallop boat. This incident could have been even more tragic, if vital lifesaving safety equipment were not at hand. Not all disasters at sea end with a loss of life. Fishermen also tell stories of dramatic rescues, stories that all have something in common: safety equipment. On February 9, 2005, a 38-foot gillnet vessel, Hollywood, sank 45 miles off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Aboard this boat were three fishermen, all of who survived. These men survived despite 40 degree water temperatures. Two of the three crew members were wearing survival suits, and they all were able to get into a life raft before the boat sank. Tragedy has again visited the New England fishing community. This month alone, two New England vessels have sank, during a time of year that is generally not as hazardous for the industry. On the evening of July 13, the Sirius sank 25 miles south of Matinicus Island, Maine. Sadly, the captain of the Sirius was lost. Fortunately, the two remaining crew members were rescued by fellow fishermen. Just four, short days later, another fishing vessel, Princess, sank off of Chatham, Massachusetts. Fortunately, the entire crew of this vessel was rescued, due in no small part to their safety equipment. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy: EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code. Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Connecticut in encouraging those who are conferees on this bill and those who will be implementing the amendment if it is enacted to read and rely on the text of Senate Report 109-71.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week, Senator Lieberman and I offered, and the Senate adopted, Amendment #1142 to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The amendment, which seeks to improve the process for providing homeland security grants to State and local governments, is nearly identical to S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill which was reported out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. S. 21 was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 4, 2005, and a detailed and comprehensive report from the Committee, Senate Report 109-71, accompanied S. 21 at that time. Because of the near identity of S. 21 and the amendment, this report pertains to Amendment #1142 as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and mine. Recent portrayals of the commercial fishing industry in film and in literature have provided the American public with glimpses of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living from the sea. These stories and movies merely scratch the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike, often without notice. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations, often as the most dangerous occupation. Between the years of 1992, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling occupational safety statistics, and 2003, 756 commercial fishing-related fatalities have been documented. This profession is roughly 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation. Too often, commercial fishing has proved tragic throughout our coastal waters including the north Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the north Atlantic. The New England fishing community is no stranger to heartbreak. The 2004-2005 winter proved no exception, with the December 20, 2004 sinking of the Northern Edge. Five fishermen were lost during this incident, which was the worst loss of life in the New England fishing community since 1991. One fisherman, Pedro Furtado, was saved when the Northern Edge went down. Pedro was able to locate a life raft, to which he clung for half an hour in high winds and freezing temperatures before being rescued by the crew of a nearby scallop boat. This incident could have been even more tragic, if vital lifesaving safety equipment were not at hand. Not all disasters at sea end with a loss of life. Fishermen also tell stories of dramatic rescues, stories that all have something in common: safety equipment. On February 9, 2005, a 38-foot gillnet vessel, Hollywood, sank 45 miles off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Aboard this boat were three fishermen, all of who survived. These men survived despite 40 degree water temperatures. Two of the three crew members were wearing survival suits, and they all were able to get into a life raft before the boat sank. Tragedy has again visited the New England fishing community. This month alone, two New England vessels have sank, during a time of year that is generally not as hazardous for the industry. On the evening of July 13, the Sirius sank 25 miles south of Matinicus Island, Maine. Sadly, the captain of the Sirius was lost. Fortunately, the two remaining crew members were rescued by fellow fishermen. Just four, short days later, another fishing vessel, Princess, sank off of Chatham, Massachusetts. Fortunately, the entire crew of this vessel was rescued, due in no small part to their safety equipment. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy: EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code. Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that will address the challenges facing many promising, talented young athletes from other countries who wish to play for sports teams in the United States. Due to the shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers both this year and last, many American teams who rely on these visas to recruit new talent from abroad have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. This bill would provide a commonsense solution to this problem. Across the United States, the H-2B visa shortage has been a significant concern to many in a wide variety of industries, including hospitality, forest products, fisheries, and landscaping, to name a few. While we recently were successful in crafting a temporary, 2-year fix for the H-2B shortage, there is more still to be done. We must continue to seek permanent solutions to this problem, and to find practical ways to reduce the demand on this visa category. While there are a number of factors contributing to this high demand, among these is the extremely diverse, ``catch-all'' nature of this visa classification. What many people do not know is that, in addition to loggers, hotel and restaurant employees, fisheries workers, landscapers, and many other types of seasonal workers, the H-2B visa category is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes. Specifically, minor league athletes--unlike their counterparts at Major League franchises-- are lumped into this same oversubscribed visa category, despite the obvious differences in the nature of the work they perform. The recent H-2B visa shortage has therefore meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation. Not only have many teams been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States, but this visa shortage has also compromised a traditional source of talent for Major League sports teams. In addition, some very talented ice skaters who have earned roles in a number of popular theatrical productions, such as Disney on Ice, have faced difficulties in coming to the United States. In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, faced tremendous difficulties last year obtaining the H-2B visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games in September. These young athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but the shortage of H-2B visas threatened their chances of improve their skills with the MAINEiacs and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. This year, due to uncertainty about the availability of H-2B visas at the end of the fiscal year, the team has had to schedule a later season home opener. It must also attempt to schedule make-up games for the home games that the team would normally play in September. This creates a hardship on the team and its venue, and could mean fewer home games and a loss of revenue for businesses in the surrounding area. I have received a letter from the MAINEiacs, expressing the teams's support for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, is another of the many teams that relies on H-2B visas to bring some of its most skilled players to the United States. Thousands of fans come out each year to see this team, and others like it across the country, play one of America's favorite sports. Due to the shortage of H-2B visas, however, Major League Baseball reports that more than 350 talented young, foreign baseball players were prevented from coming to the U.S. last year and early this year to play for Minor League teams, a traditional proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The experience gained in the Minor Leagues is crucial to the development of the best Major League players. The inclusion of these athletes in the H-2B visa category seems particularly unusual when you consider that Major League athletes are permitted to use an entirely different nonimmigrant visa category: the P-1 visa. This visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, to perform at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Arguably, any foreign athlete whose achievements have earned him a contract with an American team would meet this definition. However, CIS has interpreted this category to exclude minor and amateur league athletes. Instead, the P-1 visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. Unfortunately, this creates something of a catch-22: if an H-2B visa shortage means that promising athletes are unable to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the Minor Leagues, then they are far less likely to ever earn a Major League contract. A simple solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which continues to strongly support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional Minor League baseball players. I would ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. As the League points out, by making P-1 visas available to this group of athletes, teams would be able to make player development decisions based on the talent of its players, without being constrained by visa quotas. The P-1 category, the League argues, is appropriate for Minor League players because these are the players that the Major League Clubs have selected as some of the best baseball prospects in the world. There is no question that Americans are passionate about sports. We have high expectations for our teams, and demand only the best from our athletes. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill, rather than nationality. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-2B visa category so that more of those visas can be used where they are really needed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that will address the challenges facing many promising, talented young athletes from other countries who wish to play for sports teams in the United States. Due to the shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers both this year and last, many American teams who rely on these visas to recruit new talent from abroad have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. This bill would provide a commonsense solution to this problem. Across the United States, the H-2B visa shortage has been a significant concern to many in a wide variety of industries, including hospitality, forest products, fisheries, and landscaping, to name a few. While we recently were successful in crafting a temporary, 2-year fix for the H-2B shortage, there is more still to be done. We must continue to seek permanent solutions to this problem, and to find practical ways to reduce the demand on this visa category. While there are a number of factors contributing to this high demand, among these is the extremely diverse, ``catch-all'' nature of this visa classification. What many people do not know is that, in addition to loggers, hotel and restaurant employees, fisheries workers, landscapers, and many other types of seasonal workers, the H-2B visa category is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes. Specifically, minor league athletes--unlike their counterparts at Major League franchises-- are lumped into this same oversubscribed visa category, despite the obvious differences in the nature of the work they perform. The recent H-2B visa shortage has therefore meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation. Not only have many teams been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States, but this visa shortage has also compromised a traditional source of talent for Major League sports teams. In addition, some very talented ice skaters who have earned roles in a number of popular theatrical productions, such as Disney on Ice, have faced difficulties in coming to the United States. In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, faced tremendous difficulties last year obtaining the H-2B visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games in September. These young athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but the shortage of H-2B visas threatened their chances of improve their skills with the MAINEiacs and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. This year, due to uncertainty about the availability of H-2B visas at the end of the fiscal year, the team has had to schedule a later season home opener. It must also attempt to schedule make-up games for the home games that the team would normally play in September. This creates a hardship on the team and its venue, and could mean fewer home games and a loss of revenue for businesses in the surrounding area. I have received a letter from the MAINEiacs, expressing the teams's support for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, is another of the many teams that relies on H-2B visas to bring some of its most skilled players to the United States. Thousands of fans come out each year to see this team, and others like it across the country, play one of America's favorite sports. Due to the shortage of H-2B visas, however, Major League Baseball reports that more than 350 talented young, foreign baseball players were prevented from coming to the U.S. last year and early this year to play for Minor League teams, a traditional proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The experience gained in the Minor Leagues is crucial to the development of the best Major League players. The inclusion of these athletes in the H-2B visa category seems particularly unusual when you consider that Major League athletes are permitted to use an entirely different nonimmigrant visa category: the P-1 visa. This visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, to perform at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Arguably, any foreign athlete whose achievements have earned him a contract with an American team would meet this definition. However, CIS has interpreted this category to exclude minor and amateur league athletes. Instead, the P-1 visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. Unfortunately, this creates something of a catch-22: if an H-2B visa shortage means that promising athletes are unable to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the Minor Leagues, then they are far less likely to ever earn a Major League contract. A simple solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which continues to strongly support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional Minor League baseball players. I would ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. As the League points out, by making P-1 visas available to this group of athletes, teams would be able to make player development decisions based on the talent of its players, without being constrained by visa quotas. The P-1 category, the League argues, is appropriate for Minor League players because these are the players that the Major League Clubs have selected as some of the best baseball prospects in the world. There is no question that Americans are passionate about sports. We have high expectations for our teams, and demand only the best from our athletes. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill, rather than nationality. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-2B visa category so that more of those visas can be used where they are really needed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This legislation authorizes critical programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving our country around the world--programs such as those that provide vital protective gear, military pay raises, and increased bonuses and benefits, and the advanced weapons systems on which our troops rely. Let me thank and recognize the extraordinary efforts of our chairman of the committee and the ranking member for putting together an excellent bill. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin also for their strong commitment to our Armed Forces, to making sure that our military's needs are met. This legislation authorizes $9.1 billion for essential shipbuilding priorities, and it includes a provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy to conduct a ``one shipyard winner-take-all'' acquisition strategy to procure the next generation of destroyers, the DD(X). Not only does this legislation fully fund the President's request for the DD(X) program, but it also provides an additional $50 million for advanced procurement of the second ship in the DD(X) class at General Dynamic's Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am, understandably, very proud of the fine work and the many contributions of the skilled shipbuilders at Bath Iron Works to our Nation's defense. The high priorities placed on shipbuilding in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill stand in stark contrast to the House version of the Defense authorization. The House bill, unwisely and regrettably, slashes funding for the DD(X) program, in contrast to the President's budget. Moreover, it actually rescinds funding for the DD(X) that was provided last year. Just this week, in testimony before a House Armed Services Subcommittee, the Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy must have the next generation destroyer, the DD(X). Admiral Clark, in what is undoubtedly one of his final, if not the final, appearances as Chief of Naval Operations before his retirement, stated before the subcommittee: For the record, I am unequivocally in full support of the DD(X) program. . . . The failure to build a next-generation capability comes at the peril of the sons and daughters of America's future Navy. In response to the House addition of $2.5 billion to the shipbuilding budget to buy two additional DDG Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2006, the CNO clearly stated, ``I have enough DDGs.'' It is essential that we proceed with the DD(X) destroyer program. The DD(X) will have high-tech capabilities that do not currently exist on the Navy's surface combatant ships. These capabilities include far greater offensive and precise firepower; advanced stealth technologies, numerous engineering and technological innovations that allow for a reduced crew size; and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems, such as a new electromagnetic rail gun. Unfortunately, instability and dramatic changes have held back the progress on the DD(X) program. Initially, the Pentagon planned to build 12 DD(X)s over 7 years. To meet budget constraints, the Department slashed funding and now proposes to build only five DD(X)s over 7 years, even though the Chief of Naval Operations has repeatedly stated on the record before the Armed Services Committee, in both Chambers, that the warfighting requirements remain unchanged and dictate the need for the greater number--12 DD(X)s. We have heard a lot about the cost growth in the DD(X) program and, indeed, the increase in the anticipated cost of constructing these vital destroyers is troubling to us all. But, ironically, one of the primary drivers of cost growth in shipbuilding is instability. This lack of predictability in shipbuilding funding only increases the cost to our Nation's shipbuilders because they cannot effectively and efficiently plan their workload. And, of course, ultimately, it increases the cost to the American taxpayer. The Congress and the administration should be trying to minimize shipbuilding costs by ensuring a predictable, steadier, year-to-year level of funding. Regrettably, that has not been done. Mr. President, the key to controlling the price of ships is to minimize fluctuations in the shipbuilding account. It is crucial that we not only have the most capable fleet but also a sufficient number of ships--and I add, shipbuilders--to meet our national security requirements. Avoiding budget spikes affords more than ships; it provides stability in Naval ship procurement planning and offers a steady workload at our shipyards. When budget requests change so dramatically from year to year, even when the military requirement stays the same, shipbuilders cannot plan effectively, and the cost of individual ships is driven upward. The national security of our country is best served by a competitive shipbuilding industrial base, and this legislation before us today fully supports our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding employees. This important legislation also provides much-needed funds for other national priorities. It includes an important provision that builds upon my work and the work of other committee members last year and this year to authorize an increase in the death gratuity payable to the survivors of our military who have paid the ultimate price. It also authorizes an increase in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefit. Surely, that is the least we can do for our brave service men and women. This bill also improves care of our military by recommending a provision that would strengthen and extend health care coverage under TRICARE Prime for the children of an Active-Duty service member who dies while on active duty. This authorization bill is good for our Navy, good for our men and women in uniform who are serving our country all around the world, and I am pleased to offer my full support. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I inform the distinguished chairman that I was seeking 8 minutes to speak on the underlying bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have offered a second-degree amendment. I have asked for the yeas and nays on it. I believe that the floor staff is trying to set up the vote on the alternative approaches. It may well be appropriate for the Senator from Texas to go ahead while we are considering those things.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. While I take a slightly different approach than my colleague from New Jersey, I wish to be clear that my intent is very similar to his; that is, to close loopholes in current U.S. law that allow U.S. firms to do business in terrorist nations or nations that are known to sponsor terrorism and are under U.S. sanctions. Denying business investment to states that finance or otherwise support terrorist activities, such as Syria, Iran, or Sudan, is critical to the war on terrorism. The United States has had sanctions in place on the Iranian Government for a long time and for good reasons. These sanctions prohibit U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations from doing business in Iran, a nation known as a state sponsor of terrorism. I fully support the use of these sanctions to deny terrorist states funding and investment from American companies. Currently, U.S. sanctions provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibit U.S. companies from conducting business with nations that are listed on the terrorist sponsor list. The law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries of American companies from doing business with terrorist-supporting nations, as long as these subsidiaries are considered truly independent of the parent company. There have, however, been reports that some U.S. companies have exploited this exception in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies in order to do business with such nations. The allegations are that these foreign subsidiaries are formed and incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. sanctions laws that prohibit American corporations from doing business with terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. There is no doubt that this practice cannot be allowed to continue. I supported Senator Lautenberg's amendment last year because it was the only proposal before us to deal with this very real problem. The Senator from New Jersey has been very eloquent in speaking about this exploitation of the exceptions in the current sanctions laws. The examples that we have heard, where American firms simply create new shell corporations to execute transactions that they themselves are prohibited from engaging in, are truly outrageous. Clearly, the law does need to be tightened. But we need to be careful about how we go about addressing this problem. I have long felt that while the Senator from New Jersey is correct in his intentions, the specific language of his amendment needs improvement. We have worked very closely--my staff and I--during the past 6 months, with the administration to draft a proposal that closes the loophole without overreaching. We must draft this measure in a manner that gets at these egregious cases that are so outrageous without overstepping the traditional legal notions of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we may find ourselves harming the war on terror rather than helping. Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm. That foreign company may even be an American firm with a controlling interest in that foreign company, but under the law, it is still considered to be a foreign corporation. Senator Lautenberg's proposal requires foreign subsidiaries and their parents to obey both U.S. and applicable foreign law at the same time, even if they are in conflict. Not only does this complicate our relations with other countries, it also puts U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies in danger of being subjected to other nations' laws in retaliation. It also raises all sorts of questions when there are conflicts in the two sets of laws. At a time when we are seeking the maximum active foreign cooperation possible in the global war against terrorism, exerting U.S. law over all foreign companies owned or controlled by U.S. firms and their foreign operations seems to be an imprudent and excessive move. The administration agrees. Rather than simply declaring many foreign entities subject to U.S. law regardless of their particular situation, my amendment would take four strong steps to improve U.S. sanctions laws--specifically, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--without raising the concerns that come forth if we take the approach recommended by Senator Lautenberg. First, my amendment would prohibit any action by a U.S. firm that would avoid or evade U.S. sanctions. This would clearly prohibit the creation of a new shell company for the purposes of evading U.S. sanctions, a situation that has occurred and that we need to prevent. Second, my amendment would prohibit American firms from ``approving, facilitating or financing'' actions that would violate U.S. sanctions laws if undertaken by a U.S. firm. This would prohibit any involvement by a U.S. parent firm with an existing subsidiary that was engaged in a transaction that violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In order to comply with the law, the U.S. parent firm would need to be totally passive in any transaction. But if the American firm is, in fact, approving the actions of that foreign subsidiary that is doing business in a prohibited country or facilitating it in any way--that is a pretty broad word--or financing those prohibited actions, that would be a violation of our law. Third, my amendment would increase the maximum penalties per violation under the act from $10,000 to $250,000 for a civil violation and from $50,000 to $500,000. For companies who think that the risk of getting caught is worth it, they will need to think again because now the penalties are sufficient that they have real bite. Finally, our amendment would provide explicit subpoena authority to obtain records related to transactions covered by the act. Right now, there has been a difficulty in enforcing the sanctions in terms of getting the information that is needed. This would provide subpoena power. Specifically, by increasing penalties and providing for explicit subpoena authority, I believe my amendment results in a much stronger sanctions regime but without invoking many of the concerns that have been voiced with regard to Senator Lautenberg's amendment. Again, I want to make clear that I think the goals of the Senator from New Jersey and myself are very similar. The question is how to craft a solution that addresses the problem without overreaching and without causing the possibility of a foreign country retaliating against the American subsidiaries of that country's firm. I believe that my amendment is the right approach to this critical problem. It will make clear that U.S. corporations cannot circumvent U.S. law. They cannot set up phony shell corporations for the purpose of evading the law. They can't direct a foreign subsidiary to do what they are prohibited from doing under our laws. It will also greatly strengthen and improve the enforcement of the law through the increase in penalties and by vesting subpoena power. At the same time, my approach is carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences that will harm our relations with our international allies. I encourage my colleagues to support this balanced approach. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Collins amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Feingold, in offering an amendment extending the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR. The Special Inspector General serves as a watchdog over the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction. It has been effective in its role, uncovering and exposing a wide range of problems with the use of taxpayer funds in Iraq. For example, in reports released on May 4, the SIGIR documented instances of files that could not be located by contract managers, contract funds that no one could account for, and failures by U.S. officials to live up to commitments made to Iraqi authorities regarding the management of funds slated to rebuild Iraq. The SIGIR also found indications of potential criminal activity in the case of the South-Central Iraq audit, where managers could not account for what happened to $96.6 million of $119.9 million that was disbursed in South-Central Iraq. The SIGIR's tenure is currently 10 months after 80 percent of Iraqi relief and reconstruction funds are obligated, rather than expended. As a result, his term could expire well before all of the work that has been contracted has been performed and payments have been made. Current estimates are that Iraq reconstruction fund obligations could meet the 80 percent threshold very soon. The Feingold-Collins amendment would extend the SIGIR's tenure by changing the termination date to 10 months after 80 percent of the funds are expended. As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees government contracting, I meet with and receive briefings regularly from the Inspector General on the office's ongoing work and findings. He conducts needed, on-the- ground oversight of contracts in Iraq. His audit and investigative work provides much needed transparency of these operations and demonstrates to the new Iraqi government the importance of openness and oversight to a democratic society. Despite its effectiveness, the SIGIR office is set to begin closing down before the majority of reconstruction funds for Iraq have even been expended. We need to extend the mandate of this office to help make sure that American tax dollars are being used effectively and efficiently, and to help our reconstruction effort succeed. Without the SIGIR's experienced oversight, I fear that we may encounter an increase in fraud, waste, and abuse in the management and administration of Iraq reconstruction contracts.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Collins amendment, No. 1137, would allow the use of law enforcement terrorism prevention funds to be used for overtime costs associated with providing law enforcement operations in support of Federal agencies for increased border security and border crossing enforcement. I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by Senator Dorgan. There has been considerable discussion in recent months on the need to improve border security. One way to do this is to increase the number of Border Patrol Agents. But it takes significant time to recruit and train new Federal law enforcement agents. A more immediate way to improve border security is to activate our existing State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners as a back-up force in support of Federal border agents. This is not a new idea. The Department of Homeland Security has authorized this use with different funds in the past. Beginning with the last Federal election period up until the Presidential inauguration last January, Operation Stonegarden permitted reimbursement for State and local law enforcement activities that assisted Federal officials in securing the border. My own State of Maine participated in that operation with a great degree of success. Arthur Cleaves, the Director of the Maine Emergency Management Agency, told me that Maine realized the Nation's second highest level of agency participation in Operation Stonegarden with 22 State, county, local, and tribal agencies involved. These dedicated law enforcement professionals assisted the Border Patrol Sector in Houlton, ME, with increased patrols, reporting of incidents, and arrests of significant persons attempting to enter the United States from Canada. In fact, according to the final report on the program's activities in Maine, more than 12 arrests of persons on Government watch lists were made by State and local law enforcement in Maine. Now, however, the Department proposes to pull the rug out from under border States by allowing urban area grant funds to be used for such border security efforts, but not State grant funds. This approach makes no sense whatsoever. And when my staff asked, even the Department could not explain the rationale behind the policy of allowing interior cities--but not more rural border areas--to use Federal funds to partner with State, local, and tribal law enforcement to protect our borders. Partnering with State and local law enforcement is a proven and cost effective way to buttress our Nation's Federal border security efforts. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 1108 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding a study of the potential use of FM radio signals for an emergency messaging system) On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following: Sec. 519. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Homeland Security should conduct a study of the feasibility of leveraging existing FM broadcast radio infrastructure to provide a first alert, encrypted, multi- point emergency messaging system for emergency response using proven technology. amendment no. 1197 (Purpose: To clarify authorization for port security grants) On page 78, line 19 after ``based on'', insert ``risk and''. amendment no. 1194 (Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response to proposed new inspection guidelines within 90 days of enactment that prohibit inspectors from entering into a contract with any individual or entity for whom the inspector performs an inspection for purposes of determining eligibility for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency) At the appropriate place, insert: Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness shall propose new inspection guidelines that prohibit inspectors from entering into a contract with any individual or entity for whom the inspector performs an inspection for purposes of determining eligibility for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Amendment No. 1111, as Modified

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week we saw the terrorist attack on an ally. Our country faces very important homeland security challenges. We have been in the midst of debating important public policy issues-- how best to secure mass transit or to prepare our first responders. I cannot believe the Senate has diverted from that important debate--a debate important to Americans all across this country--and instead of finishing up the Homeland Security bill, we have diverted to debate these issues. We should not be doing this. This is exactly why the American public holds Congress in such low esteem right now. We should be focusing on the national security and homeland security challenges facing this Nation. We should not be engaging in this debate. I, for one, am going to vote no on both of the amendments. I yield the floor.