Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. The scientific evidence that people are causing the Earth to warm grows more robust each year. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. . . .'' Indeed, a new scientific analysis shows that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in the last 1,000 years. Perhaps most alarming is the rapid warming that is occurring in the Arctic. According to data released last week by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Arctic temperatures are currently increasing at a rate of two degrees per decade, and Arctic ice is melting at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Scientists are now projecting that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer by mid-century. Due to the importance of the Arctic Ocean to the world's climate as a whole, this prediction is truly alarming. To be sure, there are still numerous uncertainties. Researchers at the University of Maine have pointed out that past changes in the climate have tended to occur very abruptly, but we do not know if future changes in the climate will also occur in abrupt shifts. Nor do we know how quickly future warming will occur. Due to these uncertainties, I believe we should not only direct more attention to better understanding the climate, but also take prudent actions to reduce the risk of disruptive climatic changes. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship proposal would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. In light of the climate changes observed to date and the potential risks of even greater and more abrupt changes, I support this goal. It is a prudent step in the right direction, and I intend to vote in favor of the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Although I am in favor of the Climate Stewardship Act, I think more thought needs to go into the exact actions by which we reach the goal of reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. These are important decisions, and Congress should not allow such important decisions to rest in the hands of the agencies. I support concrete, certifiable reductions, and these reductions should come primarily by increasing the efficiency of our economy and further developing our renewable energy resources. Increasing CAFE standards for automobiles, efficiency standards for air conditioners and other appliances, and reducing power plant emissions are just a few examples of concrete steps that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has made tremendous strides in increasing the energy efficiency of the economy. In doing so, we have averted millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions. With further steps in improving our energy efficiency, the McCain-Lieberman target is imminently attainable. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to make my colleagues aware of a project of great importance, not just to my constituents in Maine, but to the rest of the country as well. The existing border crossing connecting Calais, ME to St. Stephen, New Brunswick is heavily congested and therefore causes significant traffic delays and creates serious security concerns for U.S. and Canadian travelers and cross-border commerce. The current crossing is the eighth busiest commercial crossing on the Canadian border and has seen truck traffic double over the last 10 years. Since 199 the Maine Department of Transportation, along with the Federal Highway Administration and the General Services Administration, has engaged in a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, process to determine the location for a new, modern, efficient border crossing. As part of the overall project, the General Services Administration is responsible for designing and constructing a new border station. The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, will be responsible for the design and construction of the border station on the Canadian side of the river. The Maine Department of Transportation and New Brunswick Department of Transportation, and the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency have funding in place for their portions of the design. Therefore, it is crucial that funding for the GSA portion of the project be appropriated so that design and construction work can begin as soon as possible. I would ask that the Senator from Alabama work with me to ensure that this project moves forward as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to thank the managers of the bill for their leadership on this important legislation, and I greatly appreciate their efforts to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, let me thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to craft this amendment. It has been a great pleasure to work with all of them. I believe the proposal we are advancing this evening not only reflects a great deal of thought and deliberation but is by far the best policy we could pursue. The Senate is engaged in a historic debate: the consideration of the most comprehensive package of military and foreign reconstruction assistance since the Marshall plan. The administration has asked the Congress to appropriate $87 billion, some of which would go to Afghanistan, but the vast majority would go for Iraq. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I visited Iraq last July. I am well aware of the urgent need for additional funding to support our troops. Rogue elements operating in Iraq, whether it is the remnants of the Baathist regime or terrorists from other countries, endanger our troops and threaten to undermine our efforts to establish a prosperous and democratic society. It is imperative that our troops have all the support they need to be as safe and as effective as possible. In that regard, it is indeed heartening that the $66 billion included in this package that will be used to support our troops enjoys widespread support. The stakes are very high. We simply cannot fail in Iraq. The sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform cannot be in vain. This funding will help to support their efforts and to ensure their success. I also recognize that Iraq needs our assistance in constructing a modern infrastructure and rebuilding its security services. There are $20 billion included in this bill targeted for those purposes. I note the significance of that amount; it is more than our entire foreign aid budget. So this is a very significant assistance package we are considering tonight. It is vital that basic services be restored to the Iraqi people as soon as possible so that their hardships do not continue. Without reliable electricity and clean water, the Iraqi people cannot rebuild their lives, their country, and their economy. I believe there are, however, ways to structure this assistance to provide the Iraqis with the help they need while lessening the impact on the American taxpayer. That is the goal of the bipartisan amendment we have put forth this evening. While I fully support the President's overall budget request, we have an obligation to explore ways to lessen the burden on the American taxpayer. To accomplish this goal, our amendment proposes that part of this assistance be provided to the Iraqi people in the form of a loan, to be repaid at some point in the future when Iraq once again becomes the prosperous nation it has the capacity to be. When I visited Iraq, I was struck by how little damage the war actually inflicted on the infrastructure of that nation. I saw firsthand evidence of how our precision weaponry and the care our troops took were successful in targeting installations that posed a threat to our troops or supported the regime of Saddam Hussein while sparing the civilian community. I was also struck, however, by the dreadfully poor infrastructure of communities throughout the nation. Basic elements of a modern nation, such as the electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges, were ignored by Saddam Hussein as he looted the country and left it in shambles. In fact, when you think about it, what we are really talking about is construction costs, not reconstruction. Iraq lacks many of the elements of a modern and well-functioning infrastructure. I do not believe it is in any way unfair to ask the Iraqi people to invest in their own future by repaying the American taxpayers some of the funding used to construct their infrastructure, particularly when they clearly will have the ability someday to do so, for Iraq is not Afghanistan; Iraq has an educated population, abundant natural resources and, most notably, the second largest oil reserves in the world. The administration projects that Iraq will be generating $20 billion in annual oil revenue within just 2 years. With such economic assets, Iraq undoubtedly one day will have the financial wherewithal to repay this loan. Moreover, asking the Iraqis to take some responsibility for rebuilding their own country will help give them a sense of ownership, increasing the chances that our reconstruction efforts will endure long after our troops have returned home. One of the arguments put forth by opponents of the loan concept is that Iraq is already burdened with an estimated $100 billion to $125 billion in debt from Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is often left out is that some of the largest holders of that debt are Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and Russia. If it were up to the leaders of three of those nations, the Iraqi people would still be suffering under the brutal and repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. The American people will be justifiably outraged if one dime of their money is sent to France while the American people are pouring millions of their hard-earned tax dollars into rebuilding Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia should not be paid for the debts incurred by one of the most despicable and violent leaders in decades while the American taxpayer invests billions in the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq. I also point out that structuring our assistance as loans is not without precedent. Most of the large-scale infrastructure projects undertaken in postconflict Bosnia have been administered through the World Bank in the form of loans with reasonable repayment conditions. If this approach is not hindering the reconstruction of Bosnia, the same surely should hold true for Iraq, a country with far greater economic resources. That is why we have joined this evening to offer this amendment. This amendment ensures that the American taxpayer will eventually be reimbursed for a portion of our investment in Iraq. Under our proposal, $10 billion in our construction assistance will be made available for use as loans while the other $10 billion will be available as grants. So you can see we have taken a very reasonable, moderate approach in constructing this amendment. By making available $5 billion in grants for rebuilding Iraq's security services and yet another $5 billion to jump start the reconstruction process, our approach ensures that the administration has the funds necessary to address the immediate and pressing needs. Furthermore, the amendment requires the administration to notify congressional committees after the expenditure of every $250 million of the funds. This provision will help to enhance accountability. The President is then authorized to use the remaining $10 billion as loans to the Iraqi Governing Council or its successor. Here is an important provision of our amendment. We say that if, however, 90 percent of Iraq's bilateral foreign debt is forgiven, then the remaining assistance will be converted to grants and the loans already obligated will be forgiven. So this is a very generous proposal. This provision will encourage other countries to forgive at least a portion of their debt and ensure that we are not financing the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure while nations that loaned money to Saddam Hussein are repaid. In addition, the amendment includes a sense-of-the-Senate provision encouraging all the nations to forgive their pre-liberation bilateral debt and to provide robust levels of reconstruction aid to postwar Iraq at the upcoming donors conference. The American people are very generous. They not only want to give our troops the support they need but they want to provide help to the Iraqi people. The American people understand that Iraq cannot repay this money immediately. That is not what we are asking. But the American taxpayer does deserve to be repaid eventually for some of our investment in this country. And Iraq deserves to be treated as a country that has the enormous economic potential that it clearly has. Structuring our reconstruction assistance as a loan is a reasonable approach that satisfies both concerns. Again, I acknowledge the hard work of the group of Senators, including the Presiding Officer, who have worked very hard to come up with what I believe is a commonsense approach to this aid package. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration on behalf of myself, Senator Wyden, and others.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield back my time if the Senator from Oregon will also yield back his time.

Ms. COLLINS. The amendment my colleague from Oregon and I are offering tonight requires the use of full and open competition for the award of contracts under this bill to support our military or related to the reconstruction of Iraq. Competitive bidding ensures the taxpayer gets the very best value for his investment. It also enhances public confidence that contracts are awarded in a manner that is fair and transparent, a process that allows all qualified bidders to submit bids for the contract. This principle of full and open competition is enshrined in the Competition and Contracting Act, which is current law. Under that law, contracts must generally be bid under full or open competition unless one of seven exemptions is invoked. Unfortunately, however, some of the contracts that have been awarded to date, both to support our military in Iraq and to begin reconstruction efforts, have not been awarded using full and open competition. The contracting process has been curtailed. We want to make sure the general rule is competitive bidding, and, if there are cases where there are legitimate reasons for curtailing competition--say, for reasons of national security--then we believe there should be a process in place that requires a justification for curtailing competition and disclosure of that fact. Generally, under our amendment, if competition is not used in the award of a contract, the agency involved would have to justify the reason for invoking an exception to competition and report that in the Commerce Business Daily, the Federal Register, and to the appropriate committees of Congress. We recognize there may be a few cases where it is so secret, it is so classified, that disclosure in the Commerce Business Daily and the Federal Register would not be appropriate. In those cases, we provide for an alternative form of notifying Congress. Our amendment will bring accountability and sunshine to the competition and contracting process. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. It has been a great pleasure to work with my colleague, Senator Wyden. We have made a number of efforts in this regard. I believe this amendment should enjoy widespread support. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Pryor, Coleman and Bingaman in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' Among other provisions, our bill authorizes a new, competitive State grant program to support statewide systems for care for children with serious mental illness so that parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. Of these, nearly half have a condition that produces a serious disability that impairs the child's ability to function in day-to-day activities. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it. Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with a serious mental illness to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children. Recent news reports in more than 30 States have highlighted the difficulties that parents of children with serious mental illness have in getting the coordinated mental health services that their children need. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald last summer which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting care for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system. Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts and to prevent such acts from occurring. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too may cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy titled ``Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.'' The GAO surveyed child welfare directors in all States and the District of Columbia, as well as juvenile justice officials in the 33 counties with the largest number of young people in their juvenile justice systems. According to the GAO survey, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. Moreover, the GAO estimate is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including the five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data. There have been other studies indicating that the custody relinquishment problem is pervasive. In 1999, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill released a survey which found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so. While some States have passed laws to limit or prohibit custody relinquishment, simply banning the practice is not a solution, since it can leave mentally ill children and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families. In July, I chaired a series of hearings in the Committee on Governmental Affairs to examine the difficult challenges faced by families of children with mental illnesses. We heard compelling testimony from families who told the Committee about their personal struggles to get mental health services for their severely ill children. The mothers who testified told us they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs. The legislation that we are introducing today was developed in response to concerns raised by both the GAO report and in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings. First, the legislation authorizes $55 million for competitive grants to States that would be payable over six years to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. These grants are intended to help states serve these children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families. States would use funds from these Family Support Grants to foster interagency cooperation and cross-system financing among the various State agencies with responsibilities for serving children with mental health needs. The funds would also support the purchase and delivery of a comprehensive array of community-based mental health and family support services for children who are in custody, or at risk of entering into the custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. This will allow States, which already dedicate significant dollars to serving children in state custody, to use those resources more efficiently by delivering care to children while allowing them to remain with their families. In response to recommendation made by the GAO report, the Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of their agencies in promoting access by children and youth to mental health services. And finally, the legislation will remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more states from using the Medicaid home and community- based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health conditions. The Medicaid home and community-based services waiver is a promising way for States to reduce the incidence of custody relinquishment and address the underlying lack of mental health services for children. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, to date very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. That is because, under current law, States can only offer home- and community-based services under these waivers as an alternative to care in hospitals, nursing facilities, or intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. Our legislation will correct this omission and provide parity to children with mental illness by including inpatient psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities on the list of institutions for which alternative care through the Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers may be available. The legislation we are introducing today will help to reduce the barriers to care for children who suffer from mental illness and will assist States in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children to State agencies solely for the purpose of securing mental health services. Our legislation has been endorsed by a number of mental health and children's groups including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the National Child Welfare League, the Bazelon Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Mental Health Association. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Pryor, Coleman and Bingaman in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' Among other provisions, our bill authorizes a new, competitive State grant program to support statewide systems for care for children with serious mental illness so that parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment. Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. Of these, nearly half have a condition that produces a serious disability that impairs the child's ability to function in day-to-day activities. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it. Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with a serious mental illness to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children. Recent news reports in more than 30 States have highlighted the difficulties that parents of children with serious mental illness have in getting the coordinated mental health services that their children need. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald last summer which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting care for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system. Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts and to prevent such acts from occurring. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too may cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy titled ``Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.'' The GAO surveyed child welfare directors in all States and the District of Columbia, as well as juvenile justice officials in the 33 counties with the largest number of young people in their juvenile justice systems. According to the GAO survey, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. Moreover, the GAO estimate is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including the five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data. There have been other studies indicating that the custody relinquishment problem is pervasive. In 1999, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill released a survey which found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so. While some States have passed laws to limit or prohibit custody relinquishment, simply banning the practice is not a solution, since it can leave mentally ill children and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families. In July, I chaired a series of hearings in the Committee on Governmental Affairs to examine the difficult challenges faced by families of children with mental illnesses. We heard compelling testimony from families who told the Committee about their personal struggles to get mental health services for their severely ill children. The mothers who testified told us they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs. The legislation that we are introducing today was developed in response to concerns raised by both the GAO report and in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings. First, the legislation authorizes $55 million for competitive grants to States that would be payable over six years to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. These grants are intended to help states serve these children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families. States would use funds from these Family Support Grants to foster interagency cooperation and cross-system financing among the various State agencies with responsibilities for serving children with mental health needs. The funds would also support the purchase and delivery of a comprehensive array of community-based mental health and family support services for children who are in custody, or at risk of entering into the custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. This will allow States, which already dedicate significant dollars to serving children in state custody, to use those resources more efficiently by delivering care to children while allowing them to remain with their families. In response to recommendation made by the GAO report, the Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of their agencies in promoting access by children and youth to mental health services. And finally, the legislation will remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more states from using the Medicaid home and community- based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health conditions. The Medicaid home and community-based services waiver is a promising way for States to reduce the incidence of custody relinquishment and address the underlying lack of mental health services for children. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, to date very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. That is because, under current law, States can only offer home- and community-based services under these waivers as an alternative to care in hospitals, nursing facilities, or intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. Our legislation will correct this omission and provide parity to children with mental illness by including inpatient psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities on the list of institutions for which alternative care through the Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers may be available. The legislation we are introducing today will help to reduce the barriers to care for children who suffer from mental illness and will assist States in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children to State agencies solely for the purpose of securing mental health services. Our legislation has been endorsed by a number of mental health and children's groups including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the National Child Welfare League, the Bazelon Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Mental Health Association. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the inspectors general during the past 25 years. I am very pleased to be joined in this undertaking by Senator Lieberman and many of our distinguished colleagues in both Houses of Congress. Since 1978, the inspectors general (IGs) have made valuable contributions to the efficient and economical operation of the Federal Government. They have made thousands of recommendations, which ultimately saved the American taxpayers literally billions of dollars. We've all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads build to nowhere: those are examples of the kind of wasteful spending that the IGs have exposed. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, forcing cutbacks in vital government services. Investigations by inspectors general have also resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury from companies and individuals who defrauded the Federal Government. These investigations have been the basis for thousands of criminal prosecutions, debarments, exclusions, and suspensions. In my capacity as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and previously as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have had the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with IGs to combat fraud and waste in a variety of programs. To cite just one example, I worked with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services to uncover flagrant examples of Medicare fraud. We found that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies that had provided no services whatsoever. Indeed, the address listed by one company did not exist, and, if it had, the address would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport. The Offices of Inspector General have demonstrated a record of tremendous success over the past 25 years, and we wish to commend them and their employees for their dedication and professionalism in the performance of their duties. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Lieberman and me in passing this resolution commending the IGS for their many accomplishments.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the inspectors general during the past 25 years. I am very pleased to be joined in this undertaking by Senator Lieberman and many of our distinguished colleagues in both Houses of Congress. Since 1978, the inspectors general (IGs) have made valuable contributions to the efficient and economical operation of the Federal Government. They have made thousands of recommendations, which ultimately saved the American taxpayers literally billions of dollars. We've all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads build to nowhere: those are examples of the kind of wasteful spending that the IGs have exposed. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, forcing cutbacks in vital government services. Investigations by inspectors general have also resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury from companies and individuals who defrauded the Federal Government. These investigations have been the basis for thousands of criminal prosecutions, debarments, exclusions, and suspensions. In my capacity as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and previously as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have had the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with IGs to combat fraud and waste in a variety of programs. To cite just one example, I worked with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services to uncover flagrant examples of Medicare fraud. We found that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies that had provided no services whatsoever. Indeed, the address listed by one company did not exist, and, if it had, the address would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport. The Offices of Inspector General have demonstrated a record of tremendous success over the past 25 years, and we wish to commend them and their employees for their dedication and professionalism in the performance of their duties. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Lieberman and me in passing this resolution commending the IGS for their many accomplishments.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your pledge of support, and for the leadership you consistently demonstrate on conservation issues. land remote sensing

Ms. COLLINS. I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee for the fine work he has done putting together this bill. The bill includes substantial funding for programs to conserve our Nation's treasured lands and resources, including $85 million for the forest legacy program; a program that means so much to my home State of Maine. There is one Maine conservation project, however, that does not receive funds through the Senate bill. It is the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership, the goal of which is the sustainable conservation of 342,000 acres in Maine, including 78,800 acres of pristine lakes, 54,000 acres of productive wetlands, 445 miles of unspoiled shoreline, and 342,000 acres of remote forestland. This important project, which enjoys widespread support in my State, including the support of the Governor, is at a critical stage. But it requires Federal support in the coming fiscal year to help bring the project to fruition. I would therefore ask the chairman whether he will commit to doing all he can to consider funding the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership when this bill goes to conference?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join the ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Levin, in offering an amendment that would require the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and maintain cost-effective procedures to fill the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment simply requires the Department of Energy to publish procedures for obtaining oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a manner that maximizes supplies, minimizes costs, and is consistent with national security. The amendment would give the Department of Energy 180 days to publish these procedures and would allow an opportunity for public comment prior to final publication. Two years ago, Senator Carl Levin, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, initiated an investigation into gas prices in the United States. Part-way through this effort he expanded the investigation to include analysis of Department of Energy policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Last year, I joined Senator Levin in requesting information from the Department of Energy on the impacts of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on crude oil prices. In March of this year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report which described the findings of the investigation. Among other things, the Committee found that inconsistent Department of Energy policies had led to filling the reserve during tight market conditions. The Committee found that this action had increased oil prices, hurt U.S. consumers, and increased the cost to taxpayers. The Department of Energy should adopt procedures to ensure that oil purchases for the SPR minimize the economic impact on consumers. The Department of Energy needs to take full advantage of techniques such as deferred payments, use of the futures market, and careful cost-benefit analysis in order to lessen the impact of oil purchases on consumers. Although the Department has used all of these policies on occasion, it should do so consistently. The United States has the ability to partially mitigate dramatic spikes in gas prices, if we properly use and maintain our domestic reserve. In fact, it is our duty to do so, to ease the economic impact that drastically rising gas prices have on Americans who need to fill their tanks in order to do their jobs, buy their groceries, and drive their kids to school. Our amendment would ensure that price and market impact are top considerations in managing this vital domestic emergency oil supply. It would give the Department of Energy an opportunity to focus increased attention on its policies and procedures for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with particular regard to the effect of its policies on gas prices and oil markets. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Levin and me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers. Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts. This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative. Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack. But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike. As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention. The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks. I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community. Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs. This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter- terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials. Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year. I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need. I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation. A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers. Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts. This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative. Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack. But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike. As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention. The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks. I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community. Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs. This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter- terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials. Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year. I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need. I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation. A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island in urging support for this amendment which would provide additional emergency funding for the Low Income Home Heating Assistance Program. When we experience huge spikes in the increase of home heating oil and natural gas, it imposes an incredible hardship on our low-income families and on our elderly who are living on limited incomes. We are taking a prudent action by setting aside $300 million in emergency funding in case this winter we experience the kinds of price disruptions that create such hardships for our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment that would increase the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $300 million. Before I begin my formal comments, I, too, want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his longstanding support of low-income heating assistance funding. Due to his efforts, there is in this bill a $200 million increase in LIHEAP funding over last year. Moreover, the bill would provide $300 million more in much-needed regular LIHEAP funding than either the administration's request or the House bill. So the legislation before us represents significant progress. Nevertheless, I am joining in the effort of my colleague from Rhode Island because I think it reflects a realistic appraisal of the needs for more assistance in this program. During the past year, the Nation has gone from energy crisis to energy crisis. In just this year alone, we have seen price spikes involving home heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, and electricity. Earlier this year, one of the largest suppliers of oil to American markets, Venezuela, ceased production as a result of political turmoil. A harsh cold snap occurred at about the same time, causing home heating oil supplies to plummet and prices to surge upward. More recently, we have run into a shortage of natural gas that has again sent prices shooting upward. Three weeks ago, 50 million Americans suffered through the biggest blackout in American history. And finally, most recently, the price of gasoline rose with unprecedented speed to approximately $1.75 per gallon. These energy crises impose an especially heavy burden on our low- income families and on those of our elderly who are living on limited incomes. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on energy and have fewer options available when energy prices soar. High energy prices can even cause some families to choose between keeping the heat on, putting food on the table, or paying for much- needed prescription medicine. These are choices no American family should ever have to make. Despite the hardship which energy emergencies impose on low-income Americans and despite the frequency with which we have all been forced to suffer through energy emergency after energy emergency, the bill before us does not provide any contingency LIHEAP funds to respond to these kinds of emergencies. Given the frequency with which we have been beset by energy crisis after energy crisis, in my view it is only prudent that we plan ahead and that we include some contingency funding to ensure low-income families can get through the next energy crisis on the horizon. I hope we won't have to use that funding. I hope prices will be stable, that the winter will not be unusually harsh or long, and that there will be no energy emergencies in fiscal year 2004. If there aren't, if we are lucky or fortunate, then we will have no need to spend this money and we will all be much relieved. But just in case the future repeats the past, doesn't it make sense, just in case there is another shortage of home heating oil or natural gas or price spikes or heat-related crisis next summer, we be better prepared? Should we not set aside some funding to help those who will need the help the most? I call upon my colleagues to join Senator Reed and me in supporting this amendment which will set aside an additional $300 million for energy emergencies. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Dodd- Hagel-Jefford amendment to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. I am pleased to join Senators Coleman, Murray, Dorgan, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski and others as a cosponsor of this amendment. IDEA is based on two fundamental principles: first, that all disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. And second, to the maximum extent possible, these children should be educated along side their nondisabled peers. To help States achieve these principles, Congress authorized funding at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, this funding level has never been realized, leaving States with insufficient resources and jeopardizing the achievement of IDEA's goals. In 1996, the year I was first elected to the Senate, the Federal Government provided only $2.3 billion for IDEA funding, about 7 percent. Last year, IDEA funding had risen to $8.9 billion, about 18 percent. While clearly we have made great strides in this area, the currently IDEA funding is still less than half of the 40 percent originally promised by Congress. Over the years, this shortfall has placed a tremendous financial stress on States in providing these services, and in particular on small rural communities such as those in Maine. As startling as these shortfalls are, they fail to fully convey the crushing financial blow which can result to a small community when a medically fragile, high cost child locates there. In these situations, school systems are often forced to cut back in services to all children, both disabled and nondisabled, in an attempt to meet their legal obligations. Unfortunately, this can result in resentment of these children by members of their own community. Increased Federal support is desperately needed, and that is why I want to thank Chairman Specter for the substantial increase in IDEA funding he has included in the Senate base bill. He has included nearly a billion-dollar increase over last year's level. Our amendment seeks to further boost this funding by providing an additional $1.2 billion for IDEA Part B State Grants. This increase would result in a $2.2 billion increase over fiscal year 2003 funding and will keep us on the track toward full funding. Our amendment would also be consistent with action taking during Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, which similarly provided for a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA. In Maine, passage of this amendment would result in a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2003 funding levels. With this amendment, we would raise the Federal Government's commitment to roughly 21 percent of the costs of special education. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. Let's continue our efforts to make good on our promise and fully fund IDEA.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on two of the amendments that I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring. First, let me acknowledge the hard work of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in shaping this bill. There are so many important priorities. They have done a very good job. The amendments I have cosponsored have to do with education spending. First, I think it is important that all of the Members of this body acknowledge and recognize that under President Bush's leadership we have invested unprecedented amounts of Federal funding to improve the education of our children. We should never forget that fact. In fact, President Bush's budgets are 60 percent higher for education funding than the budgets presented under President Clinton. Nevertheless, there are a couple of areas where I think we can do even better and make a real difference. Amendment No. 1566 For this reason, I have been very pleased to join my colleague from Massachusetts in offering an amendment to the bill to provide additional funding for higher education. Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits today have not been distributed equally to all Americans. As tuition rises, the road to higher education in America gets steeper and harder to climb for low- and middle-income families. In 1979, a student in the top quartile of family income was four times more likely to obtain a baccalaureate degree by age 24 than a student from the bottom quartile. That discrepancy has grown by an additional 70 percent by graduation day for the class of 2001. Tuition fees at 4-year public colleges have increased by 40 percent over the past decade. Everyone is familiar with the pressures State budgets are under, and that, too, has caused more pressure on the tuition at public universities and colleges. At the same time, the value of Pell grants has declined by nearly half over the last 20 years. Today, Pell grants cover only 40 percent of the average fixed costs at 4-year public colleges whereas 20 years ago the Pell grant covered more than 80 percent of public college expenses. From my experience in working at a Maine college before my election to the Senate, I know how critical Pell grants and other forms of Federal financial aid are in opening the doors of educational opportunity to many students. In fact, at Husson College where I worked, 85 percent of the students were reliant on Pell grants and student loans to finance their college education. Without that assistance, they simply would not be able to afford higher education. I found more and more of our students are graduating with a mound of debt because of that change in ratio. It used to be that Pell grants and other forms of assistance covered most of the costs of a college education. Now, they cover far less and thus our students are forced to take out more and more and greater and greater amounts of loans to finance their education. I am not saying education should be paid for the students, but we need to strike the right balance or else the doors of higher education and, thus, economic opportunity will be slammed shut for far too many low-income families. Therefore, our amendment provides $2.2 billion to help fund crucial higher education programs including Pell grants, the SEOG, Work-Study, Perkins loans, the LEAP program, GEAR UP, and last but not least, the TRIO programs. The Kennedy-Collins amendment would provide desperately needed funding to increase the maximum Pell grant award. Our amendment provides a $450 increase in the maximum Pell grant and increases Pell grants to approximately 4.8 million students with a median family income of only $15,200. A Pell grant makes all the difference to these low-income families. It makes the difference between their children having economic opportunity, being able to pursue an education that is so necessary for a brighter future, that is necessary to participate in the American dream. We can take this step, we can provide this $450 increase in Pell grants to these low-income children. In my State of Maine, this amendment results in an increase of $6.3 million in Pell grant aid. I also want to talk about the importance of this amendment and the significant increases for other student-oriented programs. Again, I commend the committee and subcommittee chairmen for their hard work in bringing education spending up to unprecedented levels. There is a program that I believe is so important to expanding opportunity for so many students. That is the TRIO Program. Our amendment provides a $160 million increase. The TRIO programs may be better known to many of my colleagues as Upward Bound, for example. That is an example of the TRIO programs. They help first-generation college students and low-income students get on the right track and begin to think about higher education as something that should be part of their lives. I have talked to many students in Maine whose parents did not have the advantage of higher education. They told me that prior to participating in the TRIO programs, they just did not realize that college could be part of their lives. The TRIO programs exposed them to higher education, encouraged them, counseled them, helped them afford SATs, for example. It makes a difference. It truly changes the lives of so many students who come from families with absolutely no experience in higher education. We have proposed to increase the funding for TRIO programs as well as for the GEAR UP and LEAP program which are aimed at younger children. The sooner we get students interested in higher education, the better. These programs change lives for the better. I hope we can help keep the doors of higher education open to all qualified students no matter their financial needs. Amendment No. 1568 I am also very pleased to be a cosponsor of an amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Conrad that would increase the funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program. This program I authored along with Senator Conrad as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Again, I acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the chairman, Senator Specter, on behalf of rural schools. The administration's budget, I am sad to say, eliminated funding altogether for the Rural Education Achievement Program. Senator Specter was able to restore this funding, which I deeply appreciate. It is essentially flat funded, however, and I would like to see an increase. Our rural schools--and in Maine, that is 56 percent of the school districts in the State--need help in meeting the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Children in small rural school districts deserve the same educational opportunities as their more urban counterparts. We enacted the Rural Education Achievement Program to respond to two problems. First, smaller school districts do not have the grant writers and the other resources to compete for Federal grants the way the larger, more urban school districts do. Second, they often receive so little funding under the formula programs that it is not sufficient to accomplish the goals of those programs. So the concept behind the Rural Education Achievement Program was to give more funding for rural schools, that they would not have to go through an elaborate grant-writing process, and to give them the flexibility of combining funding streams so they could have the funds available that would make a difference. Let me give a couple of examples. In Jackman, ME, for example, a small community in western Maine, last year the school district received $16,000 in REAP funding in the Rural Education Achievement Program. The superintendent plans to use that money to support technology in the classroom and teacher training. There are other examples. In the Bradley School District in Penobscot County, ME, with 104 students, they received $21,000 through the Rural Education Achievement Program. The total Federal formula funding under ESEA going to this small school district will be about $25,000 this year. That is enough to allow Bradley the flexibility to hire a part-time reading specialist to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind, to update computer systems, or provide some extended-day learning opportunities. With the increased challenges of No Child Left Behind, our Nation's rural school districts need the additional financial resources and the flexibility provided by the rural education program now more than ever. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an awards dinner being held in the Lewiston/ Auburn communities of Maine. This event, ``Celebrating the Women of L/ A,'' honors those women who have demonstrated, through their accomplishments and their caring, a significant impact on their community. The women honored in the Twin Cities' celebration have accomplished a great deal. Women across the country have soared through space, raised children, developed life-saving medicines, cared for a loved one, established businesses, and quietly improved the lives of those in their families and their communities. This special Maine dinner not only recognizes the business or scientific accomplishments of women, but also, all that these honorees bring to their families and their communities. Those submitting nominations were asked to describe briefly what it was about the nominee that made her such a special and important part of the community. Here are a few examples: ``She has coordinated charity work of many organizations such as the collection of money, clothing, coal, wood, groceries, stoves, furniture, and toys for the Relief Society; organized the sponsorship for a maternity room and children's room at Central Maine Medical Center; and selected children to receive assistance from churches.'' ``Mom works hard. She helps me. She takes me swimming. She gets me toys. She takes me shopping. We have girl-time. We go to the movie theater. She makes me dinner. She helps me clean. We cuddle on the couch and watch movies.'' ``When you need her, she's there. When you're not sure you want anyone around, she's still there for you--especially with her children. She's had to cope with the tragic death of her mother and had many set backs, and still she has maintained the strength to be there for all of us.'' ``She is a lifeline. She has been there for me through several tough times in my life, lending her support or sometimes just a sympathetic ear. She has never judged me, as others have, for my less than brilliant choices in life. No matter what the cost, she is always there to defend my decisions to anyone who may have something to say. Though her schedule is busy, she always makes time for me and for that I value her friendship.'' ``She is a professional in her field. She takes her job very seriously and always gives it her all to help people. She is a very loyal, dedicated individual who works hard for what she has.'' ``Mothers influence their children's lives in profound ways. My mom's influence has been no exception to that statement. She lived through the nightmare of seeing two brothers seriously injured during World War II and married a man that served during the Korean War. Yet, as far back as I can remember, my Mom was always cheerful and optimistic.'' ``My mother has never had time for herself, and now has her own health needs that she must attend to. Nevertheless, she still tends to the needs of others before taking care of herself. Not only has she mourned her husband, father and mother in law, but she has also had to mourn her mother and her only sibling, a brother. My mother has made the most of the sorrow and hardships and she has been an inspiration to so many people, and a wonderful role model for all of her children.'' There are so many more testimonials that were received on behalf of the honorees. They speak to the importance and influence that these women have had on their families, their friends, and their communities. I am honored to pay tribute to the following Women of L/A: Judy Merced, Crystal Brissette, Sandy Barnies, Linda Saucier, Gail L. Richard, Lorraine Yvonne Poulin Sheehy, and Etta Y. Mitchell. They each are so deserving of this recognition, and I congratulate them as they are recognized for their efforts in the home, the workplace, and in the community. These women represent so many others for whom no public praise has been made. I offer my thanks and best wishes to all the women of L/A for making our community such a strong and vibrant place to live, work, and raise a family.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my friend and colleague from Maryland in offering this important amendment to the appropriations bill. Senator Mikulski and I have teamed up on many health care issues, ranging from home health care, ensuring adequate reimbursements to diabetes research, to helping draft the Nurse Reinvestment Act as members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Today we team up once again to increase the funding for the Nurse Reinvestment Act and other nursing workforce development programs by $63 million. I join my colleague from Maryland in saluting the efforts of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in providing some significant funding for nursing education programs. Our amendment, however, would bring the total level of funding for these vital programs up to $175 million in fiscal year 2004. That is not up to the full authorized level, but it is an amount that we believe would allow us to make real progress in remedying the extreme nursing shortage facing our Nation. In fact, the United States is facing a nursing shortage of critical proportions. Moreover, this shortage is only expected to worsen as the baby boom generation ages and their need--our need--for health care grows. According to the American Hospital Association, there currently are more than 126,000 nursing vacancies in hospitals alone. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that by the year 2010, there will be a shortage of 275,000 registered nurses, more than double the current number. In Maine, almost 1 out of 10 nursing positions at hospitals across our State is vacant. We also face persistent shortages of certified nursing assistants and other front-line health care workers in our hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, and other health care facilities. The current nursing shortage poses a significant threat to the ability of our health care system to deliver quality care. The New England Journal of Medicine published a disturbing study last year which found that nursing shortages in hospitals are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death. The study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients in hospitals with fewer registered nurses were more likely to suffer from complications such as urinary infections and pneumonia; they were more likely to stay in the hospital longer; and they were more likely to die from treatable conditions such as shock and gastrointestinal bleeding. The fact is that nurses are the eyes and ears of our hospitals. They often serve as an early warning system when complications begin to develop. But the problems cannot be detected and treated early if nurses do not have sufficient time to spend with their patients. Another study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found that each additional patient in a nurse's workload meant an increase of about 7 percent in the likelihood that the patient would die within 30 days of admission. This is literally a matter of life and death. If there are more nurses, if hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities are adequately staffed with nurses, the quality of care provided to patients and the likelihood of a successful outcome are much higher. While the situation is grave today, we face even greater threats and crises in the future. Our current nursing workforce is aging. In Maine, 61 percent of our registered nurses are at least 40 years old. As a consequence, many of them will be retiring just as we aging baby boomers begin to place additional demands on our health care system. The nursing shortage therefore is sure to worsen if we do not make the critical investments today--now. We need to act more to support our current nursing workforce and to encourage more young people to choose nursing as their profession. Last year, Congress passed the Nursing Reinvestment Act to do just that. This legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support. It authorizes scholarships to nursing students who agree to provide at least 2 years of service in a health care facility with a critical nursing shortage. It creates career ladders to help nurses and other health professionals advance in their careers. It provides loan cancellation for nurses with advanced degrees in exchange for teaching at schools of nursing. Let me expand on that point. Last year, I had the privilege of meeting with the nursing deans of Husson, the University of Maine, and what is now Eastern Maine Community College. They told me that they are being overwhelmed with applications from students who are eager to study nursing, but they simply cannot accommodate the qualified applicants who wish to enter the nursing program. The reason: A shortage of nursing professors. There is a very important provision in this bill that encourages nurses with advanced degrees to teach at schools of nursing to help close that gap and lessen that shortage so that we can start training more nurses. It is not only a matter of encouraging more people to go into nursing but also to make sure that we have the nursing faculties available to educate these young students. The Nursing Reinvestment Act builds on existing title 8 nursing education programs that provide loan repayments to nurses, improves the diversity of the nursing workforce, and expands opportunities for nursing education at all levels. All of these programs play a vital role in recruiting nurses and making sure that they have the training required to effectively and compassionately care for their patients. The promise of this new law and other nursing educational programs will not be kept without an adequate investment of funds. That is why I felt so strongly about joining with my colleague from Maryland in this amendment. Increasing the funding level for these important programs to $175 million in fiscal year 2004 will allow them to expand to address nursing shortages in communities across the country. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this vital amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich and Durbin. The Superior Court is the local court of general jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. The Associate Judges on the Court are selected through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, usually because of a retiring judge, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, solicits applicants to fill the vacancy. They narrow the possible number of candidates to three and send those three names to the President. The President then selects one of those three candidates to nominate and sends the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59. Recently, I was informed that nominations, currently pending in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and an additional candidate expected to be nominated in the coming months, may not be able to be seated on the Court, even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three seats that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by retiring judges, so they are not new seats on the Court. The cause of this unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family Court Act, enacted last Congress. That Act created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the Court. As a result, the Family Court Act effectively eliminated three existing seats in the other divisions of the Court, including the criminal and civil divisions. Because of this, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently has four nominations pending for the Superior Court, but only two seats left to fill. I also understand that there is yet another nomination expected in the coming months. Because existing law sets strict requirements on both the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission as well as the White House on how quickly they must process potential candidates and make a nomination, it is unclear whether they have legal grounds to halt their processes. Nor is it clear as to whether, had they known of this problem, they would have had the power to not make the nominations they have already made. This is a highly unusual situation. Mr. President, for this body to have nominations pending before it for which there are no open positions. The bill I introduce today would rectify this problem by amending the District of Columbia Code to increase the cap on the number of Associate Judges on the Superior Court. This is not intended to create new seats on the Court; that was already done when the D.C. Family Court Act was enacted. Instead, this would preserve existing seats on the Court and remedy a problem that is effecting not only the Court, but the Senate as well. I believe that it is also important to not only remedy the immediate problem before the Senate, but also to ensure that all of the divisions of the Superior Court are fully staffed. This is more than just a procedural issue. It is also important for the citizens of the District of Columbia to know that all of the divisions, including criminal and civil, are operating at full capacity. Eliminating existing seats in the criminal and civil divisions will not improve the administration of justice in the District, but can only result in increased judicial case-load and delays at the Courthouse.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich and Durbin. The Superior Court is the local court of general jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. The Associate Judges on the Court are selected through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, usually because of a retiring judge, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, solicits applicants to fill the vacancy. They narrow the possible number of candidates to three and send those three names to the President. The President then selects one of those three candidates to nominate and sends the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59. Recently, I was informed that nominations, currently pending in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and an additional candidate expected to be nominated in the coming months, may not be able to be seated on the Court, even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three seats that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by retiring judges, so they are not new seats on the Court. The cause of this unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family Court Act, enacted last Congress. That Act created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the Court. As a result, the Family Court Act effectively eliminated three existing seats in the other divisions of the Court, including the criminal and civil divisions. Because of this, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently has four nominations pending for the Superior Court, but only two seats left to fill. I also understand that there is yet another nomination expected in the coming months. Because existing law sets strict requirements on both the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission as well as the White House on how quickly they must process potential candidates and make a nomination, it is unclear whether they have legal grounds to halt their processes. Nor is it clear as to whether, had they known of this problem, they would have had the power to not make the nominations they have already made. This is a highly unusual situation. Mr. President, for this body to have nominations pending before it for which there are no open positions. The bill I introduce today would rectify this problem by amending the District of Columbia Code to increase the cap on the number of Associate Judges on the Superior Court. This is not intended to create new seats on the Court; that was already done when the D.C. Family Court Act was enacted. Instead, this would preserve existing seats on the Court and remedy a problem that is effecting not only the Court, but the Senate as well. I believe that it is also important to not only remedy the immediate problem before the Senate, but also to ensure that all of the divisions of the Superior Court are fully staffed. This is more than just a procedural issue. It is also important for the citizens of the District of Columbia to know that all of the divisions, including criminal and civil, are operating at full capacity. Eliminating existing seats in the criminal and civil divisions will not improve the administration of justice in the District, but can only result in increased judicial case-load and delays at the Courthouse.