Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her longstanding expertise in this area. I know the Senator presented a bill to create a national intelligence director long before it was popular to do so. She has been a leader in intelligence reform. She has made several very constructive and helpful suggestions and recommendations to the committee. We very much appreciate her leadership, and we consider it a great coup to have her support for our legislation. I thank her for her hard work and her leadership. We look forward to continuing to work with her.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, for his contributions to this entire enterprise. I am very grateful to have his support for the underlying bill drafted by Senator Lieberman and myself. And I very much appreciate his offering of the first amendment to strengthen the bill still further, by adding one of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. As the Senator indicated, the Governmental Affairs Committee largely confined its review to the major recommendations of the Commission that had to do with the reorganization of our intelligence community. That does not mean, however, that we slight in any way the many other recommendations made by the Commission. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona would implement the transportation security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It is my understanding the Senator's amendment was drafted in consultation with officials from the Department of Homeland Security. I believe it will help make our Nation more secure. Specifically, the 9/ 11 Commission recommended establishing a national strategy for transportation security, assigning responsibility for the no-fly list to the Transportation Security Administration, and enhancing passenger and cargo screening. The amendment offered by the Senator will require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a national strategy for transportation security and to revise and update that strategy as necessary to improve or maintain its currency. I particularly want to comment on the provisions of the McCain amendment that task the TSA with the responsibility of developing the no-fly list and comparing the names of air passengers against the Government database containing the consolidated terrorist watch list. I think recent incidents in the news show why it is a good idea for the Transportation Security Administration to have that authority rather than vesting it in the airlines, as is now the case. I would indicate to my colleagues that the Department of Homeland Security agrees with Senator McCain that it is the more appropriate entity to perform this matching of names against the Government's database. Two incidents which come to mind are, first, one of our colleagues, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, finding that he had difficulty boarding flights because of confusion with the names listed on the terrorist database. I have a similar case of a retired physician in Camden, ME, whose name, unfortunately, including his middle initial, is very similar to a name that is on the terrorist watch list. As a result, this retired physician, who is no more a terrorist than you or I, Madam President, has an extremely difficult time every single time he flies. That shows me that we need to do a far better job of improving the quality of that watch list to make sure it is consolidated but also to make sure it is accurate and that people who have similar names are not needlessly subjected to an in-depth search or even denied boarding privileges altogether. The second incident involves the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, who was allowed to board an air flight from London to the United States recently because the airline was using a list that did not include all of the names on the terrorist watch list. So clearly we have a problem in that direction as well. There are too many watch lists. They need to be consolidated. The quality of information on those lists needs to be improved to make sure innocent Americans are not needlessly targeted, and it should be a Government responsibility--that of the Transportation Security Administration--to maintain and check these databases against the lists of airline passengers. It is really not fair to ask the airlines to accept that responsibility, particularly when they may not have access to the entire database that the Government has compiled. The McCain amendment appropriately vests in the Transportation Security Administration the responsibility for the no-fly list and for checking airline passengers against this list. I again emphasize that the Department of Homeland Security agrees that TSA should assume that responsibility and it should no longer be carried out by the airlines. For these reasons, I urge adoption of the McCain amendment. I believe it strengthens the Collins-Lieberman bill by incorporating some worthwhile and commonsense recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission in the area of airline security.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his eloquent statement of support for this legislation. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he brings extraordinary knowledge to this debate. We are very grateful for his contributions to the Collins-Lieberman bill. As both Senator Lieberman and I mentioned, Senator Rockefeller responded to our request for input and advice. We incorporated into our legislation several of the suggestions he provided. We are very grateful to have his support. It means a great deal as we proceed with this debate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today the Senate begins an important debate on the National Intelligence Reform Act. This legislation, which I have introduced with my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, represents the most sweeping reform of our intelligence structures in more than 50 years. It reorganizes an intelligence community designed for the Cold War into one designed for the war against global terrorism and future national security threats. It recognizes that the fundamental obligation of government is to protect its citizens and that those protections must evolve along with the threats. It reorders the priorities of an intelligence structure that was devised for a different time and a different enemy. On July 22, the 9/11 Commission released its final report on terrorist attacks against the United States. On that same day, our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, assigned the Governmental Affairs Committee the task of developing legislation addressing the Commission's recommendations to restructure the intelligence agencies within the executive branch. Our committee performed that task with dedication and diligence, and with the active participation of its talented members. From late July until mid-September, we held eight indepth hearings to assess the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We heard testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, including Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge, FBI Director Mueller, CIA Director McLaughlin, the 9/11 Commission Cochairmen, Kean and Hamilton, Commissioners Fielding and Gorelick, intelligence experts, field operatives, professors, and representatives of the 9/11 families. As a result of this unprecedented effort and wide-ranging input, the committee has produced the legislation now before the Senate. It is legislation that is comprehensive, bipartisan--indeed, unanimous--and historic. This legislation is not, however, merely the product of 2 months' work by our committee. It is based upon the work of the 9/11 Commission and the inquiry that spanned 20 months, with 19 days of hearings and 160 witnesses, the review of 2.5 million documents, and interviews of more than 1,200 individuals in 10 countries. The new intelligence structure we propose in our legislation is built upon a rock-solid foundation of inquiry and information. In crafting a structure designed for today and for the future, the committee built on the strengths of our current system, recognized the progress that has been made since 9/11, and charted a new course to strengthen our intelligence community. We understood that the 15 agencies that comprise the intelligence community provide a wide range of unique experience, expertise, and viewpoints that must be preserved. We realize that the barriers to information sharing, cooperation, and coordination--what the 9/11 Commission referred to as ``stovepipes''-- must be demolished. We set as our goal an intelligence structure with the agility that the times and the threats demand, not simply another layer of bureaucracy. We were determined that this new structure not infringe upon the freedoms that Americans cherish. This legislation uses the Commission's recommendations as our guide and these principles as our compass. It begins with the creation of the position of national intelligence director. The NID will be the head of our intelligence community and the principal adviser to the President of the United States. As the head of the new National Intelligence Authority, this Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed official will truly be in charge of our intelligence community. No longer will there be confusion and doubt about who is in charge and accountable. The answer will clearly be the national intelligence director. The director will have broad authority to unify and strengthen our intelligence community's efforts and to eliminate barriers that impede the coordination of intelligence activities. He or she will set standards for information sharing and classification across the intelligence community and develop an integrated, coordinated communications network. His responsibility will be to turn the stovepipes that separate our intelligence community into conduits that promote cooperation. Along with this responsibility will come strong authority to direct budgetary and personnel resources where they are needed most. To illustrate why these authorities are crucial, consider this passage from the 9/11 Commission Report. In late 1998, it had become increasingly apparent that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida posed a direct, immediate, and deadly threat to the United States. On December 4 of that year, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet issued this memorandum. I quote from it: We are at war. I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside CIA or the Community. You may ask, What is the result of this clear, concise and direct order from the head of our intelligence community. According to the Commission: The memorandum had little overall effect on mobilizing the CIA or the intelligence community. Why did it have so little impact? The expert witnesses before our committee and before the Commission provided the answer. Under the current structure, the DCI is responsible for managing the intelligence community but does not have the real authority to do so. No organization can succeed with such a disconnect between responsibility and authority. At our committee hearing on September 13, I asked Secretaries Powell and Ridge what I consider to be the bottom-line question in this debate. I asked them both: Do you believe that a strong national intelligence director with enhanced power to set collection priorities, to task the collection of intelligence, will improve the quality of intelligence that you both need in your capacity as policymakers? Each answered with an enthusiastic and unambiguous ``yes.'' As Secretary Powell put it, our intelligence team needs, and I quote the Secretary, ``a stronger, empowered quarterback.'' The Collins-Lieberman bill would provide that quarterback. Perhaps the most important power that we provide to the national intelligence director is the power of the purse. In order to foster cooperation throughout the intelligence community, the NID will have control over the budget for national intelligence. Currently, that funding is largely funneled through the Department of Defense, and the director of the CIA has only very limited authority over the overall resources of the intelligence community. Under the Collins-Lieberman bill, the NID, in consultation with the agency and department heads, will develop and recommend an intelligence budget to the President. After congressional action, it will be the NID who receives the appropriations for what will be known as the national intelligence program. The NID will also have significant authority to reprogram and transfer funds so that he can marshal the resources needed to counter a threat. Never again should we have the kind of situation we saw with the directives issued by George Tenet in December of 1998, calling on the marshaling of resources and yet nothing happens. After careful consideration, the committee decided to declassify only the aggregate figure for the national intelligence program. The Collins-Lieberman bill does not require the declassification of the budget totals for the various agencies that make up the NIP. Our witnesses generally urged great caution in going that far; instead, we require the directors to report to Congress on whether further declassification of budget totals is appropriate. The NID will allocate the budget to the various intelligence agencies in accordance with the appropriations determined by the Congress. That includes agencies such as the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and parts of the Defense Intelligence Agency which serve national intelligence consumers but are located within the Department of Defense. In recognition of the dual roles played by these important agencies, which provide critical intelligence not only to the Department of Defense but also to the CIA and other national customers, our bill keeps these agencies within the department but strengthens the NID's authority over them. It is important to emphasize that nothing in the national intelligence agency's authority will in any way hinder military operations or readiness. Tactical and joint military intelligence programs will remain under the control of the Pentagon and outside the national intelligence program as they are today. The Collins-Lieberman bill will not affect the tactical intelligence assets of the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marines. This bill will not impede the flow of real- time actionable intelligence that our war fighters require. In fact, by strengthening and improving the collection and analysis of intelligence, our legislation should improve the quality of intelligence provided to Pentagon officials and the combatant commanders. The members of the intelligence community collect a vast amount of information, but the Commission found that we have a weak system for processing and transmitting this information where it is needed. As the 9/11 report reveals, this weakness has been evident during many terrorist attacks over many years. It took an attack that claimed the lives of 3,000 people for this weakness to be fully exposed, and now it cannot be ignored. Our legislation contains strong provisions that make information sharing the rule, not the exception, and requires integrated communications networks to be developed, a serious deficiency in our current system which Senator Durbin highlighted in our hearings. We simply can no longer tolerate a system where the pieces of the puzzle are not assembled, where the CIA and the FBI each have vital, urgent, and compelling information, but no one puts the picture together. The second major Commission recommendation included in our bill is the establishment of a national counterterrorism center. It would expand the communitywide intelligence analysis capabilities of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center established by the President last year. A major benefit of this new center is that much of its staff will be drawn from the various intelligence agencies now scattered across the Federal Government. These intelligence experts will work side by side sharing and analyzing information, gaining an understanding of each other's mission, and creating a culture of cooperation. A significant responsibility of the NCTC will be joint planning. The center will have the authority to develop plans that include a mission, objectives to be achieved, courses of action, and recommendations from operational plans. Moreover, the center will assign responsibilities for counterterrorism operations to the agencies as set forth in these plans. As an example of how this might work, the NCTC would have the authority to create an interagency plan to dismantle a particular al- Qaida cell. The center would assign specific tasks to the appropriate agencies. But I want to be clear that the NCTC would not have the authority to tell any agency how it must execute that task, nor will it be in the military chain of command. Should an agency object to the NCTC assignment, the national intelligence director could either accede to the objection or appeal to the President to resolve the conflict. These provisions are important. They will ensure an integrated approach to operational planning. We are not telling the various agencies precisely how to carry out the plan, how to execute it, but we will make sure that someone is looking at plans that span agencies, and in doing the planning when it affects more than one agency, when it is joint. The legislation also includes provisions recommended by the Commission and authored by Senator Voinovich that streamline and standardize the system for security clearances, a system that we have heard, over and over again, is inconsistent, slow, and backlogged. An important provision requires the President to designate a single agency to handle security clearances for Government employees and contractors. The final chapter of the 9/11 report, the chapter that outlines the recommendations we seek to implement, begins with this statement: Some of the saddest aspects of the 9/11 story are the outstanding efforts of so many individual officials straining, often without success, against the boundaries of the possible. Good people can overcome bad structures. They should not have to. This summarizes one of the major reasons we need reform. We have a system now that does not allow us to respond with agility to the threats we face today. As this next chart shows, in our legislation we are not adding a layer of bureaucracy, nor are we breaking up individual agencies, nor are we creating a new department of intelligence. We are, instead, creating a new structure for cooperation, accountability, and results. Our legislation gives the good people in our intelligence community the structure they deserve. It also takes steps recommended by Senator Jay Rockefeller, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to ensure that we will always have good people. It creates a scholarship program to encourage bright young Americans to join the intelligence community and it will enable veteran intelligence officers to enhance their skills. Intelligence reform requires this investment in human capital. We also create a reserve corps of retired intelligence officers who can be called upon when their special skills and judgment are needed. Our bill also creates a civil liberties board as recommended by the Commission and strengthened by amendments offered by Senator Durbin. Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the members of this board will advise agencies of the civil liberties ramifications of policies before they are adopted and then will conduct oversight. In addition, our legislation will create both a civil liberties and privacy officer as part of the new national intelligence authority. The fundamental obligation of any government is to protect its citizens. The American Government has an additional obligation to protect the freedom of its citizens. Our legislation does not ask the American people to choose between security and liberty. We firmly believe that no such choice is necessary. Our structure reflects that belief. To help ensure a smooth transition from the current structure to the new, the bill provides a 6-month phase-in period that gives the President considerable discretion in implementing these reforms. We will not let our guard down during any point in this process. We also recognize that reforms of this magnitude require continued and careful congressional oversight and review. The bill includes a provision recommended by former Senator Warren Rudman that requires a report to Congress on implementation of these reforms after 1 year. As a result of an amendment offered by Senator Pryor, it also includes a useful requirement for a government accountability study and report to Congress. As I have indicated, this legislation is the product of a concerted effort by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It reflects the recommendations of other committees and it builds upon the work of the 9/11 Commission. But it is important to know that the 9/11 Commission did not start from scratch, either. Its work takes into account nearly a half century of studies on intelligence reform dating back to the Eisenhower administration. The titles of the studies and commissions reads like a ``Who's Who'' of 20th century military, intelligence, and diplomatic expertise: Hoover, Doolittle, Schlesinger, Rockefeller, Scowcroft, to name just a few. These studies were conducted under a variety of conditions and threats but a central theme emerges: America's intelligence system is hindered by a fragmented structure and compartmentalized thinking. Our past failure to act on these many studies, which spans decades, which is repeated over and over again, is why we are here today. For example, the Boren-McCurdy legislation of 1992 realized the emerging threat of the post-Cold War era, terrorism, and weapons proliferation. Using the successful restructurings of the military since World War II as models, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, this legislation called for the creation--yes, you guessed it, Mr. President--the creation of a national director of intelligence with strong authority similar to what we propose today. The Boren-McCurdy Act was not adopted. At the same time that those reforms were being set aside for another day, one component of our intelligence community had identified Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind a foiled plot to bomb American troops. Another noted bin Laden's close ties to a known terrorist who was later revealed as the architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Yet another considered bin Laden to be nothing more than an extremist financier. Information that could have led to effective action against bin Laden a decade ago was there, but it was not shared or acted on. In 1996, the Aspin-Brown Commission reached the same post-Cold War conclusion and made very similar reform recommendations. The result: yet another failure by Congress to take action. Meanwhile, our intelligence community was starting to agree that bin Laden had started something called al-Qaida and that it was some kind of terrorist army. As the 9/11 Commission notes, however, every relevant member of the intelligence community had a different plan for dealing with bin Laden and al-Qaida, from cruise missiles to diplomacy with the Taliban. While these conflicting plans were butting heads, two American Embassies in Africa were bombed, the attack on the USS Cole was approved, and what became known as the Planes Operation was taking shape. The need for reform was made clear by the 9/11 Commission's exhaustive study on the intelligence failures that preceded the murder of 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. In late July of this year, as the Governmental Affairs Committee's work began, Washington, New York City, and northern New Jersey were placed under elevated terrorist alert, an alert that is still very much evident at the intersections of this city today. Our committee work neared its conclusion as terrorists murdered once again, this time at a schoolhouse in Russia. These terrible events, combined with the slaughter we have seen in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Jerusalem, Jakarta, and so many other places, leaves no doubt that the enemy we face has both a global reach and an unlimited capacity for cruelty. Our response must be far reaching, and it must unleash America's capacity to meet any challenge. This legislation is an essential part of that response. The calls for reform go back 50 years. For nearly 2 years, the 9/11 Commission conducted an investigation of unprecedented depth. Our committee produced comprehensive legislation with unanimous support. Hardly a day passes in which we do not see new evidence of terrorism's depravity. Yet there are still some who say: We should wait. We need more information. Under the current threat of terrorist attack, the time is not right. The charged atmosphere of the election season is not the right environment for such important decisions. I ask, What more information do we need? Look at the list of witnesses who appeared before the 9/11 Commission and our committee. What point of view has not been heard? What area of expertise was not explored? What more compelling evidence do we need before we act? I ask, If the time is not right now, when will the right time come? When will there be no threats? I ask, What could be more cynical than our failure to act on something of such critical importance to the citizens of our country? At our very first Commission hearing on July 30, Commission Chairman Thomas Kean spoke on the need to move forward with these reforms. This is what he said--and I hope we will heed his words-- These people are planning to attack us again and trying to attack us sooner, rather than later. Every delay we have in changing structures or changing people . . . to make that less likely is a delay the American people can't tolerate. Yes, we can wait. We can wait until the day when we know everything we possibly can know, when there are no more threats, when the American people do not expect their leaders to lead. We can wait until the day another attack leaves us all wondering once again why we did not see it coming. That first day will never come. If we do not act, the second surely will. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which the Committee on Governmental Affairs is reporting today, be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which the Committee on Governmental Affairs is reporting today, be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the inability of promising, talented young athletes from other countries to play for sports teams in the United States, such as the MAINEiacs, a junior league hockey team in Lewiston, ME. This year's shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to me and to many in my home State of Maine. In early March, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the congressionally mandated cap of 66,000 H-2B visas would soon be met. It immediately stopped accepting applications for these visas. This meant that thousands of employers in Maine and across the United States who rely on the H-2B program have been in a very difficult position this summer. For example, Maine's tourism and hospitality industry, as well as its forest products industry, have been particularly hard-pressed to find enough American workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels during what is their busiest time of year. What many people do not know, however, is that the H-2B visa shortage has also 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. Those affected by the H-2B problem are not confined to just one industry or one State. That is why I cosponsored two pieces of legislation that would immediately address this problem: S. 2252, the Save the Summer Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy, and S. 2258, the Summer Operations and Services (SOS) Relief and Reform Act, introduced by Senators Hatch and Chambliss. The former would increase the H-2B visa cap by 40,000 this fiscal year, while the latter would exclude from the cap returning foreign workers who were counted against the cap within the past 2 years. It has become clear, however, that until this legislation comes before the full Senate for a vote, we must continue to actively seek alternative solutions to this problem. One issue we must address is the problem facing the many minor league professional teams, as well as junior league hockey teams, that rely on H-2B visas. Without these visas, sports teams in Maine and across the Nation have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. Major League sports have also lost a traditional source of talent for their teams. In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, has been unable to obtain 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 this September. Although these players range in age from 16 to 20, the majority of them are between 16 and 18 years old and are required during the hockey season to balance the demands of athletics and academics. These scholar- athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but due to the shortage of H-2B visas, they are in danger of missing out on a tremendous opportunity to improve their skills and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. In addition, for each home game that the team must cancel or reschedule, the economic impact on the city of Lewiston, and nearby Auburn, in terms of lost hotel and restaurant revenue will be considerable. The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, also relies on H-2B visas to bring several 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 what is arguably one of America's favorite sports. This year, however, approximately 300 talented young, foreign baseball players have been prevented from coming to the U.S. to play for minor league teams, a proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The P-1 nonimmigrant visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as performing at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Unfortunately, USCIS has interpreted this visa category to exclude these talented minor and amateur league athletes. This visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. However, none of these promising athletes is likely to earn a Major League contract if the players are not first permitted to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the minor leagues. This problem can easily be solved by expanding the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes, as well as those amateur-level athletes, like the Lewiston MAINEiacs, who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which strongly supports the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional minor league baseball players. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter 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. I ask that we act quickly to amend the law to make this possible.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the inability of promising, talented young athletes from other countries to play for sports teams in the United States, such as the MAINEiacs, a junior league hockey team in Lewiston, ME. This year's shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to me and to many in my home State of Maine. In early March, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the congressionally mandated cap of 66,000 H-2B visas would soon be met. It immediately stopped accepting applications for these visas. This meant that thousands of employers in Maine and across the United States who rely on the H-2B program have been in a very difficult position this summer. For example, Maine's tourism and hospitality industry, as well as its forest products industry, have been particularly hard-pressed to find enough American workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels during what is their busiest time of year. What many people do not know, however, is that the H-2B visa shortage has also 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. Those affected by the H-2B problem are not confined to just one industry or one State. That is why I cosponsored two pieces of legislation that would immediately address this problem: S. 2252, the Save the Summer Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy, and S. 2258, the Summer Operations and Services (SOS) Relief and Reform Act, introduced by Senators Hatch and Chambliss. The former would increase the H-2B visa cap by 40,000 this fiscal year, while the latter would exclude from the cap returning foreign workers who were counted against the cap within the past 2 years. It has become clear, however, that until this legislation comes before the full Senate for a vote, we must continue to actively seek alternative solutions to this problem. One issue we must address is the problem facing the many minor league professional teams, as well as junior league hockey teams, that rely on H-2B visas. Without these visas, sports teams in Maine and across the Nation have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. Major League sports have also lost a traditional source of talent for their teams. In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, has been unable to obtain 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 this September. Although these players range in age from 16 to 20, the majority of them are between 16 and 18 years old and are required during the hockey season to balance the demands of athletics and academics. These scholar- athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but due to the shortage of H-2B visas, they are in danger of missing out on a tremendous opportunity to improve their skills and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. In addition, for each home game that the team must cancel or reschedule, the economic impact on the city of Lewiston, and nearby Auburn, in terms of lost hotel and restaurant revenue will be considerable. The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, also relies on H-2B visas to bring several 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 what is arguably one of America's favorite sports. This year, however, approximately 300 talented young, foreign baseball players have been prevented from coming to the U.S. to play for minor league teams, a proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The P-1 nonimmigrant visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as performing at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Unfortunately, USCIS has interpreted this visa category to exclude these talented minor and amateur league athletes. This visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. However, none of these promising athletes is likely to earn a Major League contract if the players are not first permitted to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the minor leagues. This problem can easily be solved by expanding the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes, as well as those amateur-level athletes, like the Lewiston MAINEiacs, who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which strongly supports the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional minor league baseball players. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter 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. I ask that we act quickly to amend the law to make this possible.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in introducing legislation that will strengthen our capabilities to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill we are introducing will improve communications among the various levels of Government and will assist our State and local first responders in upgrading their communications equipment. I thank Senator Lieberman and his staff for their efforts in putting together this very important legislation and for working with me to make this bill a bipartisan effort. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the phrase ``connect the dots'' gained a prominent place in our national lexicon. The agencies charged with intelligence gathering, analysis, and enforcement did not have structures in place that would have enabled them to effectively share information and coordinate responses. The dots were there, but our intelligence and law enforcement personnel were, in far too many cases, unable to connect them. The heroism of our first responders on September 11 will never be forgotten. Their devotion to duty, their courage, and their training saved a great many lives that terrible day. Yet we now know that the lack of a unified command structure, the uneven and in some cases outright absence of interdepartmental coordination and incompatible communications equipment may have prevented them from saving even more lives, and it cost many first responders their own lives. Throughout the Nation on that day, there was another problem. False reports of car bombings and other terrorist acts spread quickly, overwhelming the immediate efforts and response, preventing a full comprehension of what had actually occurred, and causing needless fear. Our frontline civilian and military agencies struggled to improvise a defense against an attack of unknown nature and scope. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the 9/11 Commission: We fought many phantoms that day. The enemy we are fighting is no phantom. It is real, and it is deadly. From the agencies of the Federal Government down to the State and local levels, we have dedicated personnel who can defeat that enemy. We must enable them to work together more effectively in this great cause. We cannot expect them to connect the dots if so many dots are hidden from view. Although the Department of Homeland Security has made remarkable progress in forging cohesive strategies, State and local officials still tell Senator Lieberman and they still tell me that they have difficulty in obtaining needed information from Federal agencies and that they lack a reliable way to convey their own information to Federal officials. Turf battles, unfortunately, are still being fought among some agencies. There still is no effective system in place for State and local governments to share information with one another. From computer systems to emergency radios, the technology that should allow these different levels of government to communicate with each other too often is silenced by incompatibility. Clearly, the barrier to a truly unified effort against terrorism is a matter of both culture and equipment. This legislation will help break down that barrier. A General Accounting Office report on interoperable communications released last week notes that the lives of first responders and those they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively. That is the crux of the matter that the Lieberman-Collins bill seeks to address. A substantial barrier to effective communications, according to the GAO, is the use of incompatible wireless equipment by many agencies and levels of government when they are responding to a major emergency. Among the GAO recommendations are that Federal grants be used to encourage States to develop and implement plans to improve interoperable communications and that the Department of Homeland Security needs to establish a long-term program to coordinate these same communications upgrades throughout the Federal Government. Our legislation would do much to implement these sensible recommendations. It is vitally important that we assist the States in getting the right communications technology into the hands of their first responders. That would be accomplished by the interoperability grant program in this legislation. I believe that grant program is the most important feature of our legislation. At a homeland security conference held in my home State of Maine in May, one of the most persistent messages that I heard from Maine's first responders concerned the lack of compatibility in communications equipment. It remains a substantial impediment to their ability to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. For a State like mine that has three deepwater cargo ports, two international airports, key defense installations, hundreds of miles of coastline, and a long international border, compatible communications equipment is essential. Yet it remains an illusive goal. Maine's firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel do an amazing job in providing aid when a neighboring town is in need. Fires, floods, and accidents are local matters in which they have great expertise and experience. Their defense of the front lines in the war against terrorism, however, is a national matter. Maine's first responders, along with first responders across the country, are doing their part, but they need and deserve Federal help. The grant program established by our bill would guarantee every State a share of interoperability funding and makes additional funding available for States with special needs and vulnerabilities. It is designed to get this vital funding to first responders quickly, in coordination with a statewide plan. At that Maine conference, I was joined by Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson. He, perhaps, best described the mutual responsibilities of this Federal-State partnership when he said: We cannot secure the homeland of America from Washington,

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in introducing legislation that will strengthen our capabilities to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill we are introducing will improve communications among the various levels of Government and will assist our State and local first responders in upgrading their communications equipment. I thank Senator Lieberman and his staff for their efforts in putting together this very important legislation and for working with me to make this bill a bipartisan effort. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the phrase ``connect the dots'' gained a prominent place in our national lexicon. The agencies charged with intelligence gathering, analysis, and enforcement did not have structures in place that would have enabled them to effectively share information and coordinate responses. The dots were there, but our intelligence and law enforcement personnel were, in far too many cases, unable to connect them. The heroism of our first responders on September 11 will never be forgotten. Their devotion to duty, their courage, and their training saved a great many lives that terrible day. Yet we now know that the lack of a unified command structure, the uneven and in some cases outright absence of interdepartmental coordination and incompatible communications equipment may have prevented them from saving even more lives, and it cost many first responders their own lives. Throughout the Nation on that day, there was another problem. False reports of car bombings and other terrorist acts spread quickly, overwhelming the immediate efforts and response, preventing a full comprehension of what had actually occurred, and causing needless fear. Our frontline civilian and military agencies struggled to improvise a defense against an attack of unknown nature and scope. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the 9/11 Commission: We fought many phantoms that day. The enemy we are fighting is no phantom. It is real, and it is deadly. From the agencies of the Federal Government down to the State and local levels, we have dedicated personnel who can defeat that enemy. We must enable them to work together more effectively in this great cause. We cannot expect them to connect the dots if so many dots are hidden from view. Although the Department of Homeland Security has made remarkable progress in forging cohesive strategies, State and local officials still tell Senator Lieberman and they still tell me that they have difficulty in obtaining needed information from Federal agencies and that they lack a reliable way to convey their own information to Federal officials. Turf battles, unfortunately, are still being fought among some agencies. There still is no effective system in place for State and local governments to share information with one another. From computer systems to emergency radios, the technology that should allow these different levels of government to communicate with each other too often is silenced by incompatibility. Clearly, the barrier to a truly unified effort against terrorism is a matter of both culture and equipment. This legislation will help break down that barrier. A General Accounting Office report on interoperable communications released last week notes that the lives of first responders and those they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively. That is the crux of the matter that the Lieberman-Collins bill seeks to address. A substantial barrier to effective communications, according to the GAO, is the use of incompatible wireless equipment by many agencies and levels of government when they are responding to a major emergency. Among the GAO recommendations are that Federal grants be used to encourage States to develop and implement plans to improve interoperable communications and that the Department of Homeland Security needs to establish a long-term program to coordinate these same communications upgrades throughout the Federal Government. Our legislation would do much to implement these sensible recommendations. It is vitally important that we assist the States in getting the right communications technology into the hands of their first responders. That would be accomplished by the interoperability grant program in this legislation. I believe that grant program is the most important feature of our legislation. At a homeland security conference held in my home State of Maine in May, one of the most persistent messages that I heard from Maine's first responders concerned the lack of compatibility in communications equipment. It remains a substantial impediment to their ability to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. For a State like mine that has three deepwater cargo ports, two international airports, key defense installations, hundreds of miles of coastline, and a long international border, compatible communications equipment is essential. Yet it remains an illusive goal. Maine's firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel do an amazing job in providing aid when a neighboring town is in need. Fires, floods, and accidents are local matters in which they have great expertise and experience. Their defense of the front lines in the war against terrorism, however, is a national matter. Maine's first responders, along with first responders across the country, are doing their part, but they need and deserve Federal help. The grant program established by our bill would guarantee every State a share of interoperability funding and makes additional funding available for States with special needs and vulnerabilities. It is designed to get this vital funding to first responders quickly, in coordination with a statewide plan. At that Maine conference, I was joined by Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson. He, perhaps, best described the mutual responsibilities of this Federal-State partnership when he said: We cannot secure the homeland of America from Washington,

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act. This legislation would extend the additional payment for home health services delivered in rural areas. This additional 5 percent reimbursement is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1, 2005. This legislation would make the additional reimbursement permanent. I note the presence of one of the strongest advocates of home health care, and that is my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. He has worked tirelessly to make certain that our seniors and disabled citizens are able to receive the home health care they need. I am very pleased to have him as one of the key supporters of this legislation. Home health care has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our home health caregivers provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to receive health care just where they want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes. I have had the great honor of accompanying several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their visits to serve their patients. I have seen firsthand the difference that they are making for Maine's elderly. I remember visiting one elderly couple who told me that it was home health care that allowed them to stay together in their very own home, rather than being separated with one of them being forced to go into a nursing home in the remaining years of their life. Another woman told me that her late husband received home health care in the months leading up to his death. That had allowed him to be treated at home and to be with his family, which is where he very much wanted to be. Nevertheless, 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, the 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. The executive director of Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in northern Maine where I am from tells me that her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 73,000 people. Her costs are understandably much higher than other agencies due to the long distances her staff must drive to see their clients. Moreover, her staff is obviously not able to see as many patients in a day. Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, thus increasing overall the 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 urban patients and are understandably more expensive for home health agencies to serve. If the rural extra payment is not extended, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept patients living in remote areas who have greater care needs. That would translate into less access to health care for ill homebound seniors. Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins. It could force some of these agencies to close their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If any of these agencies is forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region could lose all their access to home health care. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today, with Senators Lincoln, Bond, Feingold, Thomas, Conrad, and Burns, will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services they very much need. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. We must act to ensure that this extra payment does not expire next April 1. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act. This legislation would extend the additional payment for home health services delivered in rural areas. This additional 5 percent reimbursement is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1, 2005. This legislation would make the additional reimbursement permanent. I note the presence of one of the strongest advocates of home health care, and that is my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. He has worked tirelessly to make certain that our seniors and disabled citizens are able to receive the home health care they need. I am very pleased to have him as one of the key supporters of this legislation. Home health care has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our home health caregivers provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to receive health care just where they want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes. I have had the great honor of accompanying several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their visits to serve their patients. I have seen firsthand the difference that they are making for Maine's elderly. I remember visiting one elderly couple who told me that it was home health care that allowed them to stay together in their very own home, rather than being separated with one of them being forced to go into a nursing home in the remaining years of their life. Another woman told me that her late husband received home health care in the months leading up to his death. That had allowed him to be treated at home and to be with his family, which is where he very much wanted to be. Nevertheless, 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, the 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. The executive director of Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in northern Maine where I am from tells me that her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 73,000 people. Her costs are understandably much higher than other agencies due to the long distances her staff must drive to see their clients. Moreover, her staff is obviously not able to see as many patients in a day. Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, thus increasing overall the 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 urban patients and are understandably more expensive for home health agencies to serve. If the rural extra payment is not extended, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept patients living in remote areas who have greater care needs. That would translate into less access to health care for ill homebound seniors. Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins. It could force some of these agencies to close their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If any of these agencies is forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region could lose all their access to home health care. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today, with Senators Lincoln, Bond, Feingold, Thomas, Conrad, and Burns, will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services they very much need. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. We must act to ensure that this extra payment does not expire next April 1. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Australia Free Trade Agreement. On balance, this agreement is overwhelmingly beneficial to the State of Maine, and to the country as a whole. Critical to my decision to support this agreement is the fact that it will provide new and expanded opportunities to Maine businesses that want to expand into the Australian market. This agreement will create and support good jobs in my State. It is clear that businesses across Maine are interested in initiating or expanding trade with Australia. The Maine International Trade Center held a seminar recently on export market opportunities in Australia. Representatives from more than fifty Maine companies, including many small businesses and manufacturers, attended. It is no wonder: the United States has a trade surplus with Australia of $9.1 billion, the second largest trade surplus of any U.S. trading partner. Australia is a net consumer of United States exports and particularly United States manufactured goods. Ninety-three percent of United States exports to Australia are manufactured goods, and 99 percent of these goods will be duty-free if the agreement is implemented. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts that the agreement could result in nearly $2 billion per year in new United States exports of manufactured goods to Australia, a boost to our hard- pressed manufacturers. In addition, Australia is the 15th largest economy in the world and has been growing over the past few years while the rest of the world is in recession. This means more Australian buying power--and many new opportunities for Maine and United States companies to export their products to Australia. Australia has a strong and vibrant trading relationship with Maine. Australia is Maine's 12th largest export market, and in 2003, Maine exported nearly $29 million in high-value goods, such as electrical equipment, computers, and paper products, to the country. The agreement will make these goods 99.25 percent duty free, on average, in the Australian market. Maine's forest and paper products industry will be stronger and will be able to grow as a result of this agreement. The agreement lifts all Australian tariffs on all U.S. forest products, which currently face tariffs up to 5 percent. This is important, because the United States is Australia's second largest supplier of paper and paperboard, with exports totaling $178 million in paper products in 2003. Expanded access to the Australian market will directly benefit Maine mills. For example, International Paper's mill in Jay ME, exports about 1,200 tons of paper to Australia every year. These exports currently face a 5 percent tariff. If the free trade agreement is implemented, the tariff will be eliminated, and International Paper will be able to fulfill its plans to increase the amount of paper it exports to Australia from Maine, preserving and even increasing the number of jobs supported by the mill. The agreement will benefit other Maine companies as well. The elimination of tariffs will enable FMC Coporation's Rockland plant to significantly expand its export of carrageenan products to Australia. In Southern Maine, National Semiconductor and Fairchild Semiconductor will benefit from the agreement's elimination of tariffs on all U.S. high-tech manufactured goods and from expanded opportunities for U.S. suppliers to compete for a broad range of Australian government contracts. The Maine Potato Board has endorsed the agreement because it will open and expand Australian markets for Maine potato products. The MPB notes that the long-term success of the Maine potato industry is absolutely dependent on the growth of new markets. Despite the overwhelming benefits of this pact, I do have some concerns with this agreement. While Maine does stand to reap substantial benefits, I am disappointed that the United States Trade Representative has included language that conflicts with the goal of drug reimportation. One of the greatest challenges facing American consumers is the high cost of prescription drugs. That is why I have long supported legislation to allow Americans to benefit from international price competition on prescription drugs by permitting FDA-approved medicines made in FDA-approved facilities to be imported into this country. Despite the ongoing debate in Congress and the strong support for drug reimportation on the part of the American public, I am disappointed that our trade representatives have insisted on including language in this trade agreement that is contrary to these critically important efforts. The Australian government already bans the export of drugs subsidized under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Since 90 percent of the drugs prescribed in Australia are subsidized, Australia would not be a significant source of supply of imported drugs into the United States, with or without this agreement. Drugs imported into the United States are far more likely to come from Canada and Western Europe. I am concerned, however, that these provisions set a bad precedent. While Australia itself is not necessarily a good source for imported drugs, this language could become a template for future agreements. I am also disappointed that this agreement provided some additional market access for Australian dairy products in the U.S. market. However, I am pleased the final version of the agreement includes marked improvements over initial drafts. For example, the agreement gradually phases in limited increases in dairy imports over an 18-year period. In addition, the agreement maintains the current U.S. above- quota tariffs on dairy products indefinitely. These improvements were included in the agreement after I joined with my colleagues in sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick asking that the interests of our dairy farmers be taken into account as the agreement was negotiated. The inclusion of these provisions, in addition to my consultations with Maine's agricultural leaders, has led me to conclude that this agreement will not have a significant impact on Maine's dairy industry. Moreover, Australia currently exports only a small amount of MPCs to the United States, and this agreement will not change this. Australia is one of our oldest and most reliable partners. The country is a growing market for high-value U.S. exports from both Maine and the country. The free trade agreement we are considering today will strengthen the economic and diplomatic ties between our countries. On balance, it is good for Maine, and for both countries.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, that would give Federal employees, retirees, and their families greater access to comprehensive dental and vision insurance coverage. The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 would establish a voluntary program under which Federal employees and annuitants may purchase dental and vision coverage. The legislation grants the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to select the appropriate combination of nationwide and regional companies and a variety of benefit packages to meet the diverse needs of our Federal employee and annuitant population. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research estimates that for every dollar spent on dental disease prevention, $4 is saved in subsequent treatment costs. Improved access to dental and vision care is an essential component of any comprehensive health care strategy. Federal employees need and deserve increased access to dental and vision benefits. Today, the Federal community has access to excellent medical coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). Unfortunately, the program provides reimbursement for only a small fraction of dental care. Customer surveys indicate that FEHB enrollees want more comprehensive dental and vision benefits than those that are currently being provided in the FEHB program. The increasing demand for dental and vision benefits has prompted Senator Akaka and me to pursue legislation that would offer separate and improved coverage for Federal employees, retirees, and their families. The stand-alone model contained in my legislation preserves the integrity of the FEHB while encouraging the purchase of additional dental and vision coverage. It is important to note that nothing in my legislation prevents the existing medical carriers from continuing to offer dental and vision coverage under the FEHBP. Further, nothing in the legislation precludes current FEHBP carriers from participating in the competitive process to offer benefits under the new voluntary dental and vision programs. The legislation simply provides a mechanism for dental and vision companies to participate in the Federal employee benefits arena. In recognition of the enormous fiscal pressures faced by the Federal Government, the legislation is designed to provide an employee-paid dental and vision benefit, patterned after the Federal Employees Long- Term Care Insurance Program. By leveraging the purchasing power of the Federal Government, combined with market-driven competition, OPM would have the ability to provide access to more comprehensive dental and vision coverage to employees and retirees at no cost to the Federal Government. Federal employees would have the confidence that OPM has given its seal of approval to the benefit packages provided under the voluntary programs. The legislation recognizes the geographic dispersion of the Federal workforce and the need for greater access to care through local dental and eye health professionals by requiring companies to provide coverage in under-served areas. For example, companies selected to provide coverage to a particular region would be required to develop and maintain provider networks in all States, including States where access to care may be less available. While the legislation lists general categories of benefits that may be offered under the new programs, the statutory model is flexible to ensure that the benefit packages can be modified over time to incorporate future advances in dental and vision products, therapies, and technologies. Employees look to their employer to provide education about their benefits. For this reason, the legislation requires OPM to make available the educational tools necessary so that Federal employees have a clear understanding of the choices available to them. Employees will have access to information on how the voluntary plans can supplement the existing, though limited, coverage offered by their medical plan under the FEHBP, to meet their individual needs for care. OPM would also educate employees about the value of their existing Flexible Spending Accounts to help cover out-of-pocket dental and vision expenses. These options can help Federal employees and annuitants get the best value for their premium dollar. Administration by OPM would ensure that each contract is awarded on the basis of quality and price, and that the companies understand and adapt to the needs of Federal employees, retirees, and their families. Additionally, OPM would provide participants access to a process to appeal adverse benefit determinations. Premiums can be made through payroll or annuity deductions, direct payments to the participating companies, or both. The plans would be open to all Federal civilian employees and annuitants, regardless of whether they currently participate in the FEHBP. As with the Long-Term Care Insurance Program, our measure for the success of the dental and vision programs would be the extent to which Federal employees purchase these benefits. My colleagues and I have recognized, through our support of legislation to assist the Federal Government with its recruitment and retention efforts, that the Federal Government's most important asset is its human capital. Employees of 48 State governments offer or provide access to dental benefit plans to employees. Surveys indicate that 95 percent of employers with 500 or more employees provide dental insurance. The opportunity to purchase enhanced dental and vision coverage will help the government with its ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce. The legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Dental Plans, and the American Optometric Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in providing our Federal employee community with greater access to dental and vision coverage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, that would give Federal employees, retirees, and their families greater access to comprehensive dental and vision insurance coverage. The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 would establish a voluntary program under which Federal employees and annuitants may purchase dental and vision coverage. The legislation grants the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to select the appropriate combination of nationwide and regional companies and a variety of benefit packages to meet the diverse needs of our Federal employee and annuitant population. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research estimates that for every dollar spent on dental disease prevention, $4 is saved in subsequent treatment costs. Improved access to dental and vision care is an essential component of any comprehensive health care strategy. Federal employees need and deserve increased access to dental and vision benefits. Today, the Federal community has access to excellent medical coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). Unfortunately, the program provides reimbursement for only a small fraction of dental care. Customer surveys indicate that FEHB enrollees want more comprehensive dental and vision benefits than those that are currently being provided in the FEHB program. The increasing demand for dental and vision benefits has prompted Senator Akaka and me to pursue legislation that would offer separate and improved coverage for Federal employees, retirees, and their families. The stand-alone model contained in my legislation preserves the integrity of the FEHB while encouraging the purchase of additional dental and vision coverage. It is important to note that nothing in my legislation prevents the existing medical carriers from continuing to offer dental and vision coverage under the FEHBP. Further, nothing in the legislation precludes current FEHBP carriers from participating in the competitive process to offer benefits under the new voluntary dental and vision programs. The legislation simply provides a mechanism for dental and vision companies to participate in the Federal employee benefits arena. In recognition of the enormous fiscal pressures faced by the Federal Government, the legislation is designed to provide an employee-paid dental and vision benefit, patterned after the Federal Employees Long- Term Care Insurance Program. By leveraging the purchasing power of the Federal Government, combined with market-driven competition, OPM would have the ability to provide access to more comprehensive dental and vision coverage to employees and retirees at no cost to the Federal Government. Federal employees would have the confidence that OPM has given its seal of approval to the benefit packages provided under the voluntary programs. The legislation recognizes the geographic dispersion of the Federal workforce and the need for greater access to care through local dental and eye health professionals by requiring companies to provide coverage in under-served areas. For example, companies selected to provide coverage to a particular region would be required to develop and maintain provider networks in all States, including States where access to care may be less available. While the legislation lists general categories of benefits that may be offered under the new programs, the statutory model is flexible to ensure that the benefit packages can be modified over time to incorporate future advances in dental and vision products, therapies, and technologies. Employees look to their employer to provide education about their benefits. For this reason, the legislation requires OPM to make available the educational tools necessary so that Federal employees have a clear understanding of the choices available to them. Employees will have access to information on how the voluntary plans can supplement the existing, though limited, coverage offered by their medical plan under the FEHBP, to meet their individual needs for care. OPM would also educate employees about the value of their existing Flexible Spending Accounts to help cover out-of-pocket dental and vision expenses. These options can help Federal employees and annuitants get the best value for their premium dollar. Administration by OPM would ensure that each contract is awarded on the basis of quality and price, and that the companies understand and adapt to the needs of Federal employees, retirees, and their families. Additionally, OPM would provide participants access to a process to appeal adverse benefit determinations. Premiums can be made through payroll or annuity deductions, direct payments to the participating companies, or both. The plans would be open to all Federal civilian employees and annuitants, regardless of whether they currently participate in the FEHBP. As with the Long-Term Care Insurance Program, our measure for the success of the dental and vision programs would be the extent to which Federal employees purchase these benefits. My colleagues and I have recognized, through our support of legislation to assist the Federal Government with its recruitment and retention efforts, that the Federal Government's most important asset is its human capital. Employees of 48 State governments offer or provide access to dental benefit plans to employees. Surveys indicate that 95 percent of employers with 500 or more employees provide dental insurance. The opportunity to purchase enhanced dental and vision coverage will help the government with its ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce. The legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Dental Plans, and the American Optometric Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in providing our Federal employee community with greater access to dental and vision coverage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S.J. Res. 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Let me begin my remarks by plainly stating my position on the issues raised by this amendment. First, it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Second, principles of federalism dictate that the right and the responsibility to define marriage belong to the States. Third, the proper role of the Federal Government is to ensure that each State can exercise that right and responsibility by preventing, as the Defense of Marriage Act does, one State from imposing its view on others. The amendment under consideration would potentially affect two types of relationships that are fundamental to our society. The first is the union between a man and a woman. The second is the compact between the States and the Federal Government. In our zeal to protect the former, we must not do unnecessary violence to the latter, as it is the bedrock of our country's unique and highly successful Federal system. We also must not overreact to the decision of a single court in a single State by rushing to amend the Constitution and stripping away from our states a power they have exercised, wisely for the most part, for more than 200 years. Let us remember that no State legislature has sanctioned same-sex marriage. Nor has there been a popular referendum to that effect in any State. Indeed, this amendment is a response to a single court decision--and a 4-3 decision at that. If just one judge on the Massachusetts court had a different view of this issue, we would not be contemplating the dramatic action of amending the Constitution. Put differently, where is the evidence that we cannot trust the States in this area? More than 40 States have enacted laws or Constitutional amendments that expressly limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman. Maine law explicitly states that ``[p]ersons of the same sex may not contract marriage,'' and further provides that Maine will not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would violate the legal requirements in Maine. Thus, even if lawfully performed in another State, a same-sex marriage will not be valid in Maine. In short, I respect the right of the people of Maine and the citizens of other States to define marriage within their boundaries. Were I a member of the Maine legislature, I would vote in favor of a law limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman. This does not mean that Congress can play no role in this area. To the contrary, Congress has two very important roles. The first is to protect the right of each State to define marriage within its own borders, and the second is to define marriage for Federal purposes. To its credit, Congress did both of these when it enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. Signed into law by President Clinton, DOMA enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, passing by a margin of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. The statute grants individual states autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriages and other unions within their borders, and ensures that no State can compel another to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Of equal importance, DOMA defines marriage for Federal purposes as ``the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' I strongly endorse both of the principles codified by DOMA, and should legislation come before the Senate reaffirming DOMA, I would vote without reservation to support it. Even though DOMA has not been successfully challenged during the 8 years since its enactment, many supporters of the Federal marriage amendment point to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas as presaging DOMA's ultimate demise on Constitutional grounds. They argue that DOMA's vulnerability necessitates approving the amendment under consideration. I reject that argument for two reasons. First, the conclusion that DOMA is inevitably destined to die a Constitutional death is inconsistent with language in the Lawrence decision. In striking down a Texas statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between consenting adult homosexuals, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy was careful to note that the case before the Court: . . . does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor was even more explicit when she observed that the invalidation of the Texas statute: . . . does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail. . . .Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group. These statements persuade me that the Supreme Court is, in fact, unlikely to strike down DOMA. Second, even if DOMA is eventually invalidated, the answer is not to abandon our principles of federalism but rather to enshrine them in the Constitution. Thus, if we ultimately have to address this matter as a Constitutional issue, and we should do so only as a last resort, it should not be to strip the States of the right to define marriage but rather to expressly validate a role they have been playing for more than 2 centuries. Let me end where I began. This amendment is not just about relationships between men and women but also about the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. I would not let a one- vote majority opinion of a single state court lead us to ascribe to Washington a power that rightfully belongs to the states. To the contrary, our role should be to safeguard the ability of each State to exercise that power within its own borders.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the United States and Israel share a strong and enduring friendship. We also share the threat of terrorist attacks against our citizens. Yet, while terrorism within our borders is relatively new to us, Israelis have confronted this danger for decades. Israel's long history of fighting terrorism has spurred Israeli businesses, researchers and academics to develop highly sophisticated homeland security technologies, particularly in the fields of border integrity, transportation security, and first responder equipment. As the United States pursues new approaches to protecting our Nation, it only makes sense to look to Israel's extensive expertise in this area. This is why I am introducing legislation with Senator Lieberman to establish a program to provide funds to eligible joint ventures between American firms and businesses in countries such as Israel that are already highly focused on the homeland security issue and have demonstrated the capacity for fruitful cooperation with America in the area of counterterrorism. This program will act as a revolving fund to develop new homeland security technologies. As these technologies are deployed and become profitable, the businesses that developed them will be required to repay the program for the amount of the funds. This requirement, which has worked for similar existing programs, will help sustain the availability of funds for future funds. The program will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security. It will dedicate $25 million toward these joint ventures that develop, manufacture, sell, or otherwise provide products and services with applications related to homeland security. This legislation will build upon a number of other highly successful public-private partnerships between businesses in the United States and those located in countries such as Israel. Since its founding in 1977, the Bi-National Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) has created numerous research and development partnerships between American and Israeli businesses. The BIRD Foundation has invested $180 million in 600 projects during the past 27 years. Similar partnerships also exist in the development of agricultural, defense, telecommunications, and other technologies. This record demonstrates the potential of a similar binational foundation in the area of homeland security. As recent international events have demonstrated, the fight against terrorism knows no borders. This legislation will enable our Nation to deploy the highest quality and most innovative tools to improve our homeland security. I ask you to join me in supporting this effort to enhance our Nation's fight against terrorism.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the United States and Israel share a strong and enduring friendship. We also share the threat of terrorist attacks against our citizens. Yet, while terrorism within our borders is relatively new to us, Israelis have confronted this danger for decades. Israel's long history of fighting terrorism has spurred Israeli businesses, researchers and academics to develop highly sophisticated homeland security technologies, particularly in the fields of border integrity, transportation security, and first responder equipment. As the United States pursues new approaches to protecting our Nation, it only makes sense to look to Israel's extensive expertise in this area. This is why I am introducing legislation with Senator Lieberman to establish a program to provide funds to eligible joint ventures between American firms and businesses in countries such as Israel that are already highly focused on the homeland security issue and have demonstrated the capacity for fruitful cooperation with America in the area of counterterrorism. This program will act as a revolving fund to develop new homeland security technologies. As these technologies are deployed and become profitable, the businesses that developed them will be required to repay the program for the amount of the funds. This requirement, which has worked for similar existing programs, will help sustain the availability of funds for future funds. The program will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security. It will dedicate $25 million toward these joint ventures that develop, manufacture, sell, or otherwise provide products and services with applications related to homeland security. This legislation will build upon a number of other highly successful public-private partnerships between businesses in the United States and those located in countries such as Israel. Since its founding in 1977, the Bi-National Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) has created numerous research and development partnerships between American and Israeli businesses. The BIRD Foundation has invested $180 million in 600 projects during the past 27 years. Similar partnerships also exist in the development of agricultural, defense, telecommunications, and other technologies. This record demonstrates the potential of a similar binational foundation in the area of homeland security. As recent international events have demonstrated, the fight against terrorism knows no borders. This legislation will enable our Nation to deploy the highest quality and most innovative tools to improve our homeland security. I ask you to join me in supporting this effort to enhance our Nation's fight against terrorism.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Leon Holmes to be a district court judge for the U.S. District Court of Arkansas. The ``advice and consent'' role given to the Senate in the U.S. Constitution is one of the Senate's most solemn duties, and one to which I give the utmost care. Since Federal judges serve for lifetime terms, I carefully review every nominee to ensure that he or she is well-qualified and possesses the proper professional competence and integrity. Although, naturally, I apply no litmus test with respect to a nominee's personal beliefs, a commitment to following the law and applying it soundly is critical. Perhaps the most important factor in evaluating a nominee is whether the person has the proper ``judicial temperament.'' There are two elements that must be considered when making this determination. The first involves what we would commonly understand the characteristics of good temperament to entail: would the nominee show courtesy and respect toward the practitioners and parties in his courtroom, while at the same time remaining confident and firm. From all I have heard about Mr. Holmes, he has a fine reputation for being both civil and professional, and I have no concerns about his nomination in this regard. The second element of judicial temperament is more troubling in this case. It involves the deliberative mindset that is so valued in our jurists--the ability to separate emotion and personal views while applying the laws in a neutral and impartial manner. A judge must be able to transcend personal views in ruling on the matters before the court. It is for this reason that I am concerned about whether Mr. Holmes has the proper judicial temperament to receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. After a careful review of the Judiciary Committee proceedings and Mr. Holmes' record, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Holmes has not demonstrated the requisite ability to put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Over many years, Mr. Holmes has made a number of public statements, many in letters to the editor or in published articles, that raise serious questions about his ability to set aside his deeply held beliefs in order to impartially apply laws with which he disagrees. In fact, Mr. Holmes himself has characterized some of his previous comments as ``strident and harsh rhetoric.'' These statements were not made in the midst of casual conversation; they were largely written pieces that reflected the thoughts of Mr. Holmes on these matters. In one extremely troubling instance, Mr. Holmes wrote that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' This appalling statement was not a chance comment, instantly regretted. Rather, Mr. Holmes included this statement in a letter he submitted for publication in The Daily Dispatch. In addition to the insensitivity and inaccuracy demonstrated by this comment, I believe it demonstrates that Mr. Holmes lacks the measured approach that is critical for sound judicial decision-making and the ability to set aside his personal views to apply settled principles of law. In an April 11, 2004 letter to Senator Lincoln, Mr. Holmes stated, ``I do not propose to defend that sentence, and I would not expect you or anyone else to do so.'' While in this same letter Mr. Holmes went on to apologize for this remark, he also acknowledged that his comment ``reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse.'' I agree with Mr. Holmes that there is no excuse for this statement, and his belated apology came only after he was nominated for the Federal bench. Unfortunately, this type of comment is not an isolated one, but one in a series of unsettling statements Mr. Holmes has made in his writings over many years. For example, Mr. Holmes authored an article in 1997 in which he wrote that ``the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,'' and ``the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.'' In 1982, Mr. Holmes authored another letter for the Arkansas Gazette, entitled ``The Scary New Argument for Abortion,'' in which he compared certain arguments justifying abortion to arguments used to justify the actions of Nazi Regime. In 2001, he authored a comment for another publication in which he criticized both Roe and Casey as ``constitutionaliz[ing] the theory of moral relativism.'' Mr. President, let me be clear that I respect Mr. Holmes' personal views on abortion rights and am not opposing his nomination on those grounds. In fact, I have voted for many judicial nominees whose personal views were different from mine on the right to choose, among other issues. Nor do I believe that a nominee should be required to indicate how he would decide issues of substantive law that may arise in future cases. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Mr. Holmes can put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Unfortunately, his strident statements about a woman's right to choose raise doubts about his commitment to following settled law, including Roe v. Wade. I note that the Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Holmes' nomination ``without recommendation.'' It is extremely rare for a nominee to be passed from the Judiciary Committee in this manner. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, a district court nominee has never been reported out of Committee to the floor without recommendation. It is my belief that the Judiciary Committee's unusual action in this regard represents more than an historical quirk. In fact, it underscores the concerns about this nomination. Because of the concerns raised by the many writings and comments of Mr. Holmes, of which I have cited only a few examples, I am unable to support his nomination. Our legal system depends on having judges who put an allegiance to following settled law above any personal beliefs. Mr. Holmes' history of inflammatory statements could cause the parties before him to question whether his strong personal beliefs would allow him to follow settled law and apply it in a fair and unbiased way. Mr. President, in light of these concerns, I will oppose this nomination.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from New York in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States, like Maine, that have a disproportionate number of elderly persons. Maine currently is our Nation's seventh ``oldest'' State. Moreover, our older population will continue to grow in the future and, by the year 2025, one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65. One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them. What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older--including more than 32,000 Mainers--experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is that fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated. While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed. Those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs. Untreated depression can even lead to suicide. The sad fact is that Americans over 65 are more likely to commit suicide than any other age group. Among those over 85, the suicide rate is twice the national average. What is particularly disturbing about these statistics is that studies have shown that 40 percent of older people who commit suicide have had a visit with their primary care provider within one week of their death. Seventy percent of these elderly suicide victims had a primary care visit within 30 days of their death. Fortunately, important research is being done that is helping to develop innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care. The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for a range of projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary health care settings, including community health centers, senior centers, and assisted living facilities. Moreover, the evidence-based services under this legislation will be provided by interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals working in collaboration with other providers of health and social services. Among other provisions, our legislation authorizes the creation of an Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Administration on Aging to develop and implement initiatives to address the mental health needs of older adults. In addition, the Administration on Aging would be authorized to provide grants to States for the development and testing of model mental health delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and the elderly. It would also be authorized to award demonstration grants to projects targeted to providing screening and mental health services for seniors residing in rural areas, as well as grants to encourage the collaboration between mental health and other health and social services providers in providing screening and treatment services. The legislation also authorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to award demonstration grants which would support the integration of evidence-based mental health services by geriatric mental health specialists into primary care settings and support the establishment of community-based mental health treatment outreach teams in settings where older adults reside or receive social services. The Positive Aging Act will help to promote the mental health and well-being of our older citizens. It is an investment that will return tremendous dividends in terms of improved quality of life, better patient outcomes, and more efficient use of health care dollars. The legislation has been endorsed by the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the National Council on Aging, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from New York in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States, like Maine, that have a disproportionate number of elderly persons. Maine currently is our Nation's seventh ``oldest'' State. Moreover, our older population will continue to grow in the future and, by the year 2025, one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65. One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them. What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older--including more than 32,000 Mainers--experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is that fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated. While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed. Those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs. Untreated depression can even lead to suicide. The sad fact is that Americans over 65 are more likely to commit suicide than any other age group. Among those over 85, the suicide rate is twice the national average. What is particularly disturbing about these statistics is that studies have shown that 40 percent of older people who commit suicide have had a visit with their primary care provider within one week of their death. Seventy percent of these elderly suicide victims had a primary care visit within 30 days of their death. Fortunately, important research is being done that is helping to develop innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care. The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for a range of projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary health care settings, including community health centers, senior centers, and assisted living facilities. Moreover, the evidence-based services under this legislation will be provided by interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals working in collaboration with other providers of health and social services. Among other provisions, our legislation authorizes the creation of an Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Administration on Aging to develop and implement initiatives to address the mental health needs of older adults. In addition, the Administration on Aging would be authorized to provide grants to States for the development and testing of model mental health delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and the elderly. It would also be authorized to award demonstration grants to projects targeted to providing screening and mental health services for seniors residing in rural areas, as well as grants to encourage the collaboration between mental health and other health and social services providers in providing screening and treatment services. The legislation also authorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to award demonstration grants which would support the integration of evidence-based mental health services by geriatric mental health specialists into primary care settings and support the establishment of community-based mental health treatment outreach teams in settings where older adults reside or receive social services. The Positive Aging Act will help to promote the mental health and well-being of our older citizens. It is an investment that will return tremendous dividends in terms of improved quality of life, better patient outcomes, and more efficient use of health care dollars. The legislation has been endorsed by the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the National Council on Aging, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Oregon on this legislation to strengthen protections for civil rights and civil liberties. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, during his joint address to Congress, the President called on all Americans to ``uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.'' In response to the need to safeguard our homeland, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that created the Department of Homeland Security, the most significant government restructuring in more than 50 years. But in focusing our attention on protecting the homeland from future terrorist attacks, we also must ensure that we do not trample on the very values that the terrorists seek to destroy. In enacting the Homeland Security Act, Congress understood the importance of providing checks and balances to protect civil rights and civil liberties. To this end, Congress created within the Department three positions devoted wholly or in part to ensuring respect for civil liberties as the Department carries out its mandate to protect our homeland. These positions are the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer, and the Department's Inspector General. These three officials have crucial roles in assessing actions of the Department that may affect personal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The nature of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security makes safeguards especially important. The Department is now our country's biggest law enforcement agency. It has more Federal officers with arrest and firearm authority than the Department of Justice. In addition, DHS law enforcement personnel have contact with thousands of people every day. In this post 9/11 world, DHS law enforcement personnel must be especially sensitive to maintaining civil liberties as they work to strengthen security and detect and deter terrorist attacks. I am pleased that the leadership of the Department recognizes the fundamental importance of protecting the rights of all of us while fighting terrorism. Under the leadership of Secretary Ridge, the new Department of Homeland Security has won praise for its commitment to the protection of our freedoms. Secretary Ridge has provided the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer with the tools they need to be effective. These officials have functioned at the senior level, regularly providing advice to the Secretary and his deputies. The Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer and the Inspector General have met regularly with organizations concerned about civil liberties, privacy, human rights, and immigrant rights and have been responsive to their concerns. It is time for Congress to build on the foundation Secretary Ridge has laid in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. I believe the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 does exactly that. The bill would write into law the activities of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. As enacted, the Homeland Security Act did not clearly define the duties of that position. Over the past year, however, a strong Officer, with the support of the Department's leadership, has charted an important course for his office. The Officer has worked closely with the senior leadership of the Department. He has assisted in the development of departmental policies to ensure that civil liberties are given due consideration. He has overseen compliance with constitutional and other requirements relating to the rights and liberties of individuals affected by the Department's programs. He has coordinated with the Privacy Officer to ensure that overlapping privacy and civil rights concerns are addressed in a comprehensive way. And he has investigated alleged abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. None of these activities is expressly addressed in the statutory language creating the Department, and there is no assurance in the law that future Officers for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will work so energetically to carry out these vital duties. It is time for the law to catch up with practice, and the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act ensures that goal. The bill also clarifies that the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as the Privacy Officer should report directly to the Secretary, and requires coordination between those officers to ensure an integrated and comprehensive approach to the important issues they address. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 strengthens the ability of the Department's Inspector General to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties by requiring the DHS Inspector General to designate a senior official to coordinate investigation of abuses, ensure public awareness of complaint procedures, and coordinate his or her work with the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This position is similar to one Congress created in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. Finally, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 amends the mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that actions taken by the Department to protect the homeland do not diminish civil liberties and civil rights. This important revision places into the statutory language that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is crucial in this time of heightened security. The battle against terror will last for many years, perhaps decades. During that long struggle, we must continue to secure our nation against future attacks, but at the same time protect those American values that define our free society. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 will strengthen the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and will help to ensure that that protection will continue in the years to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Oregon on this legislation to strengthen protections for civil rights and civil liberties. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, during his joint address to Congress, the President called on all Americans to ``uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.'' In response to the need to safeguard our homeland, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that created the Department of Homeland Security, the most significant government restructuring in more than 50 years. But in focusing our attention on protecting the homeland from future terrorist attacks, we also must ensure that we do not trample on the very values that the terrorists seek to destroy. In enacting the Homeland Security Act, Congress understood the importance of providing checks and balances to protect civil rights and civil liberties. To this end, Congress created within the Department three positions devoted wholly or in part to ensuring respect for civil liberties as the Department carries out its mandate to protect our homeland. These positions are the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer, and the Department's Inspector General. These three officials have crucial roles in assessing actions of the Department that may affect personal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The nature of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security makes safeguards especially important. The Department is now our country's biggest law enforcement agency. It has more Federal officers with arrest and firearm authority than the Department of Justice. In addition, DHS law enforcement personnel have contact with thousands of people every day. In this post 9/11 world, DHS law enforcement personnel must be especially sensitive to maintaining civil liberties as they work to strengthen security and detect and deter terrorist attacks. I am pleased that the leadership of the Department recognizes the fundamental importance of protecting the rights of all of us while fighting terrorism. Under the leadership of Secretary Ridge, the new Department of Homeland Security has won praise for its commitment to the protection of our freedoms. Secretary Ridge has provided the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer with the tools they need to be effective. These officials have functioned at the senior level, regularly providing advice to the Secretary and his deputies. The Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer and the Inspector General have met regularly with organizations concerned about civil liberties, privacy, human rights, and immigrant rights and have been responsive to their concerns. It is time for Congress to build on the foundation Secretary Ridge has laid in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. I believe the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 does exactly that. The bill would write into law the activities of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. As enacted, the Homeland Security Act did not clearly define the duties of that position. Over the past year, however, a strong Officer, with the support of the Department's leadership, has charted an important course for his office. The Officer has worked closely with the senior leadership of the Department. He has assisted in the development of departmental policies to ensure that civil liberties are given due consideration. He has overseen compliance with constitutional and other requirements relating to the rights and liberties of individuals affected by the Department's programs. He has coordinated with the Privacy Officer to ensure that overlapping privacy and civil rights concerns are addressed in a comprehensive way. And he has investigated alleged abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. None of these activities is expressly addressed in the statutory language creating the Department, and there is no assurance in the law that future Officers for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will work so energetically to carry out these vital duties. It is time for the law to catch up with practice, and the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act ensures that goal. The bill also clarifies that the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as the Privacy Officer should report directly to the Secretary, and requires coordination between those officers to ensure an integrated and comprehensive approach to the important issues they address. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 strengthens the ability of the Department's Inspector General to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties by requiring the DHS Inspector General to designate a senior official to coordinate investigation of abuses, ensure public awareness of complaint procedures, and coordinate his or her work with the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This position is similar to one Congress created in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. Finally, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 amends the mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that actions taken by the Department to protect the homeland do not diminish civil liberties and civil rights. This important revision places into the statutory language that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is crucial in this time of heightened security. The battle against terror will last for many years, perhaps decades. During that long struggle, we must continue to secure our nation against future attacks, but at the same time protect those American values that define our free society. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 will strengthen the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and will help to ensure that that protection will continue in the years to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.