Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the leader for his assistance.

Ms. COLLINS. If I could be recognized for 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act, which passed the House earlier today by an overwhelming vote. I am so pleased that it appears we are on the verge of finally passing a very balanced, reasonable, and bipartisan bill to keep our economy on the road to recovery. It has been a long struggle, back and forth, between the House and the Senate and between the two parties, and now it is great to see us all coming together on a consensus bill. I thank the House leadership, and in particular Chairman Bill Thomas for all the work he has done in putting together this excellent legislation. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes two provisions about which I care a great deal. The first is the extension of unemployment compensation for displaced workers for an additional 13 weeks. Last October, I introduced the first bipartisan bill to extend unemployment benefits for workers who had exhausted their regular State benefits and yet still have been unable to find new work or to be rehired because of the weak economy. These workers need our help. We know that in January alone some 370,000 unemployed workers exhausted their benefits, up 63 percent from the year before. The situation is similar in Maine. We experienced a large increase in the number of unemployed workers who have been unable to find new work and have exhausted their normal 26 weeks of State unemployment benefits. This extension could help some 3 million unemployed workers, many of whom lost their jobs either as a direct or indirect result of September 11 or have been affected by the recession that our country just now seems to be on the verge of pulling out of. I know the Presiding Officer has been very concerned about the large number of unemployed Americans living in her State which has experienced one of the higher jumps in unemployment insurance. I know this is a provision she has been a strong advocate for as well. The second provision on which I want to comment tonight is one that is very near and dear to me. It is a provision I have worked on for the past 3 years, originally with Senators Coverdell and Kyl, and more recently with Senators Warner and Landrieu. Just Tuesday, President Bush spoke about the need to support our elementary and secondary education teachers, to help them bring out the best in their students, our children. Now we are close to passing another milestone in our journey toward the goal of supporting our teachers. The provision to which I am referring is known as the teacher tax provision. It is a provision that has been included in the economic recovery package that would establish an above-the-line deduction of up to $250 to compensate teachers for a small part of what they invest in our children. This tax deduction would be available to teachers who dip deep into their own pocket in order to buy supplies, materials, or books for their classrooms. This above-the-line deduction would be available for teachers, teacher's aides, principals, and counselors to help reimburse them in just a small way for the books, supplies, and equipment they purchase for their students. I notice the Senator from Iowa is in the Chamber. He has been very helpful with this provision as well. I thank him, too. Just last year, we passed landmark legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. A principal goal of this bill is to promote teacher excellence. We know that other than involved parents, the most important predictor of a student's success is a quality teacher. I have visited close to 100 schools in the State of Maine, and I have seen firsthand how dedicated our teachers are. They deserve our support. This is a way we can recognize the selfless efforts of our teachers and the financial sacrifices they make in entering the field of teaching and also in making purchases to improve the classrooms where they teach. According to a study by the National Education Association, the average classroom teacher spends more than $400 a year out of his or her own pocket in order to buy supplies or materials or books for the classroom. This sacrifice is typical of the dedication of America's teachers to their students. So often teachers in Maine and throughout the country spend their own money to better the classroom experiences of their students. Let me cite an example. I have spoken to dozens of teachers who have told me about their efforts to improve the quality of their teaching by giving their students access to supplies and other materials they would not otherwise have. One example is Idella Harter. She is president of the Maine Education Association. One year, Idella saved all of her receipts from the purchases of classroom materials. She started adding up the receipts and was startled to discover she had spent over $1,000 of her own money to enrich the educational experience of her students. She told me she decided after she got to $1,000, she had better stop counting. The relief our Tax Code now provides to our teachers is simply not sufficient because most teachers do not itemize so they do not get the benefit of the tax deduction for the supplies for their classroom. By changing the system so that we now have an above-the-line tax deduction, we will help many more teachers. By allowing them to take an above-the-line deduction for classroom expenses, this provision takes a fair, progressive approach that will provide just a bit of thanks and a little bit of incentive and financial relief to our schoolteachers. It will also encourage additional spending on classroom supplies. The teacher tax provision of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act helps teachers to go that extra mile for their students. We have all seen them. We know how dedicated they are. We know the difference they have made in our own lives. As President Bush has eloquently noted, teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets. This provision would reimburse educators for a small part of what they invest in our children's future. I hope we will clear this bill very shortly and pass it either tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. I hope all of my colleagues will join in a strong vote for this important legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to comment on these two important provisions. I am delighted to see two of my top legislative priorities on the verge of being signed into law. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 2001. This bill will close loopholes in the enforcement of our securities laws and furnish Federal authorities with the tools they need to combat growing fraud in the microcap securities market. While the Enron debacle has focused attention on the need for tougher and fuller financial disclosure standards to protect small investors, microcap fraud costs investors an estimated $6 billion every year. I first introduced this bill in the 106th Congress after extensive examination by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chaired. I am pleased that the North American Securities Administrators Association, which is made up of our Nation's State securities regulators, has once again sent me a letter of strong support and has made passage of legislation such as this one of its top legislative priorities. Today's securities markets are much different than they were even a decade ago. Many more people own securities than ever before. The rise of the Internet has allowed investors greater access to market information and investment advice. Unfortunately, not all of this information and advice has been sound, or even honest. These problems are exacerbated in the microcap market. Microcap stocks are those of smaller, thinly capitalized companies. Because the individual share prices may be higher than a certain threshold, however, they may avoid regulation as ``penny stocks.'' Because investors typically know little of these companies, their share prices are easier to manipulate due to the small amount of total capital. They are often less regulated than the securities of larger companies and, therefore, they can pose difficult challenges for law enforcement and unique opportunities for dishonest brokers. It is this combination of a microcap company's low capitalization, making its share price more easily manipulable, and obscurity, along with high-pressure sales tactics, that make microcap stocks so appealing to the more dishonest elements in our securities markets. Frequently, salesmen will call customers, pitching these investments with high pressure sales tactics. More sophisticated scams involve a practice known as the ``pump and dump'' where a securities firm that has purchased a large block of a microcap company's stock will market it aggressively and quickly to investors. As a result of the surge in demand, the share's price will rise sharply but temporarily, despite the unchanged fundamentals underlying the stock's price. After a short time, investors will realize that the company's performance does not merit its new share price. The stock's share price will then plummet, but the firm will by then have unloaded its shares, leaving investors holding the bag. In other cases, however, dishonest brokers and firms simply fail to execute sales orders or otherwise commit garden variety theft masquerading as securities transactions, such as churning or making unsuitable recommendations. States prosecute these criminals activities with some success and often obtain orders prohibiting further securities activities by bad actors within their jurisdiction. Because such an order ends at a State's borders, however, the defendants can simply pick up, move to a new State, and begin their schemes anew. In contrast, a Federal order would have effect nationwide. Because Federal law enforcement resources are limited, however, there is only so much it can do, and many smaller time criminals can continue to operate below the federal government's radar screen. My bill would institute several reforms to address these problems. First, it would allow the SEC to take enforcement actions against brokers and firms on the basis of those already concluded by state agencies. Although States may base their actions on Federal actions, the reverse is not true. As a result, the SEC must duplicate the State's efforts to provide nationwide protection to investors. By allowing the SEC to base disciplinary actions on those concluded by states, the State's disciplinary actions can be given effect nationwide, when appropriate, without the SEC's having to commit significant amounts of additional resources. Second, the bill would allow the SEC to keep those who commit any type of financial fraud from participating in the microcap market. Currently, the SEC can ban those who commit securities violations. But the SEC should have the poser to discipline those who commit other types of financial services offenses as well. Third, this bill would broaden provisions designed to prevent fraud in the penny stock market. Under current law, the SEC can suspend or bar those who commit fraud in this market. However, brokers so barred can turn around and commit the same types of offenses in the microcap market because their individual share prices might exceed $5 per share, even though the total capitalization amount is small enough to lend itself to easy manipulation. The penny stock market ban needs to be expanded to the microcap market as well. Fourth, the statutory officer and director bar would be expanded to cover all publicly traded companies. Currently, this bar only applies to companies that report to the SEC, leaving open the possibility that those who have been barred from serving in these companies could serve in others that are exempt from reporting. Companies involved in microcap schemes are frequently traded over the counter and are not covered by the bar. Under my bill, this bar would extend to all publicly traded companies. Finally, the bill would allow the SEC to enforce its own orders and court injunctions against repeat offenders directly rather than waiting for the Justice Department to initiate contempt proceedings. Instead the SEC would be able to seek immediate civil penalties for repeat violations without the delay that can occur from the initiation of contempt proceedings. These are common sense, measured steps that can make a real difference in the level of protection that we provide to investors, many of whom are new to our capital markets. I would urge the Senate to consider and pass the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support from the NASAA be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 2001. This bill will close loopholes in the enforcement of our securities laws and furnish Federal authorities with the tools they need to combat growing fraud in the microcap securities market. While the Enron debacle has focused attention on the need for tougher and fuller financial disclosure standards to protect small investors, microcap fraud costs investors an estimated $6 billion every year. I first introduced this bill in the 106th Congress after extensive examination by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chaired. I am pleased that the North American Securities Administrators Association, which is made up of our Nation's State securities regulators, has once again sent me a letter of strong support and has made passage of legislation such as this one of its top legislative priorities. Today's securities markets are much different than they were even a decade ago. Many more people own securities than ever before. The rise of the Internet has allowed investors greater access to market information and investment advice. Unfortunately, not all of this information and advice has been sound, or even honest. These problems are exacerbated in the microcap market. Microcap stocks are those of smaller, thinly capitalized companies. Because the individual share prices may be higher than a certain threshold, however, they may avoid regulation as ``penny stocks.'' Because investors typically know little of these companies, their share prices are easier to manipulate due to the small amount of total capital. They are often less regulated than the securities of larger companies and, therefore, they can pose difficult challenges for law enforcement and unique opportunities for dishonest brokers. It is this combination of a microcap company's low capitalization, making its share price more easily manipulable, and obscurity, along with high-pressure sales tactics, that make microcap stocks so appealing to the more dishonest elements in our securities markets. Frequently, salesmen will call customers, pitching these investments with high pressure sales tactics. More sophisticated scams involve a practice known as the ``pump and dump'' where a securities firm that has purchased a large block of a microcap company's stock will market it aggressively and quickly to investors. As a result of the surge in demand, the share's price will rise sharply but temporarily, despite the unchanged fundamentals underlying the stock's price. After a short time, investors will realize that the company's performance does not merit its new share price. The stock's share price will then plummet, but the firm will by then have unloaded its shares, leaving investors holding the bag. In other cases, however, dishonest brokers and firms simply fail to execute sales orders or otherwise commit garden variety theft masquerading as securities transactions, such as churning or making unsuitable recommendations. States prosecute these criminals activities with some success and often obtain orders prohibiting further securities activities by bad actors within their jurisdiction. Because such an order ends at a State's borders, however, the defendants can simply pick up, move to a new State, and begin their schemes anew. In contrast, a Federal order would have effect nationwide. Because Federal law enforcement resources are limited, however, there is only so much it can do, and many smaller time criminals can continue to operate below the federal government's radar screen. My bill would institute several reforms to address these problems. First, it would allow the SEC to take enforcement actions against brokers and firms on the basis of those already concluded by state agencies. Although States may base their actions on Federal actions, the reverse is not true. As a result, the SEC must duplicate the State's efforts to provide nationwide protection to investors. By allowing the SEC to base disciplinary actions on those concluded by states, the State's disciplinary actions can be given effect nationwide, when appropriate, without the SEC's having to commit significant amounts of additional resources. Second, the bill would allow the SEC to keep those who commit any type of financial fraud from participating in the microcap market. Currently, the SEC can ban those who commit securities violations. But the SEC should have the poser to discipline those who commit other types of financial services offenses as well. Third, this bill would broaden provisions designed to prevent fraud in the penny stock market. Under current law, the SEC can suspend or bar those who commit fraud in this market. However, brokers so barred can turn around and commit the same types of offenses in the microcap market because their individual share prices might exceed $5 per share, even though the total capitalization amount is small enough to lend itself to easy manipulation. The penny stock market ban needs to be expanded to the microcap market as well. Fourth, the statutory officer and director bar would be expanded to cover all publicly traded companies. Currently, this bar only applies to companies that report to the SEC, leaving open the possibility that those who have been barred from serving in these companies could serve in others that are exempt from reporting. Companies involved in microcap schemes are frequently traded over the counter and are not covered by the bar. Under my bill, this bar would extend to all publicly traded companies. Finally, the bill would allow the SEC to enforce its own orders and court injunctions against repeat offenders directly rather than waiting for the Justice Department to initiate contempt proceedings. Instead the SEC would be able to seek immediate civil penalties for repeat violations without the delay that can occur from the initiation of contempt proceedings. These are common sense, measured steps that can make a real difference in the level of protection that we provide to investors, many of whom are new to our capital markets. I would urge the Senate to consider and pass the Microcap Fraud Prevention Act quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support from the NASAA be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Are we in morning business?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last Friday night, I attended the Maine Annual Fisherman's Forum in Rockport, ME. This is a wonderful event that brings leaders from the industry together to talk about problems that the fishing industry is experiencing. We have a wonderful fresh fish dinner and then there is an auction held which annually raises thousands of dollars in scholarship money. But this year, a shadow was cast over the entire forum. We arrived at the forum only to learn that earlier that day, the National Marine Fisheries Service had unveiled a Draconian response to a Federal lawsuit that had been filed that affects the ground fishing industry. The response proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service would have a devastating impact on our fishermen in Maine. The life of a fisherman is already a difficult one. He or she encounters rough weather, and we have suffered devastating losses of life in the fishing industry in Maine. It is a difficult life. They are proud, independent people who ask only that they be given a fair chance to earn a living. The fishermen of my State have been leaders in pioneering conservation efforts. They understand it is necessary to have some restrictions to preserve the fish stocks for future generations, but when we get into a situation where lawsuits are being filed and Federal regulators respond in a way that is completely indifferent to the needs of the fishing industry, we make the life of Maine's fishermen virtually impossible. Already we have seen years and years of escalating restrictions that have driven many fishermen out of business, cut the incumbent processors, suppliers, and fish auctions, and strained coastal communities that are the heart of Maine. In fact, 1,200 fishermen have participated in retraining programs, and the Coastal Workforce Board, which runs these programs, estimates that represents only a third of the total number of displaced fishermen. Since 1995, the ground fishing industry has been limited to only 88 days at sea, a restriction that has been extremely difficult for those in the industry to bear. Nevertheless, they have coped, they have managed to endure, even under the restrictions of only 88 days at sea. Imagine the shock of Maine fishermen when they learned that Federal regulators were proposing to cut in half the number of days they can be at sea. Furthermore, they have restricted the number of days that can occur during the peak season for fishing. Only 22 of the days can occur during the peak season. This is devastating. Imagine that, our fishermen are being told they can only go to sea for 44 days a year in the Gulf of Maine. Some Federal regulators in the regulatory community have pointed out that the fishermen would still be allowed to use their full allowance of days during the nonseason months. Those are the months between October and May. Again, I wonder to whom these regulators are talking. Surely they know those months are not practical for a sustained fishing effort. Fishermen encounter low stocks, low prices, and, most of all, hazardous weather. The restrictions in the proposals put forth by the National Marine Fisheries Service go even further. Each day that a fisherman goes out to sea, no matter how short the trip, even if the fisherman is only out for a few hours, will be counted as a full 24 hours at sea. The proposal also calls for restricted fishing areas. In short, these restrictions will have a devastating impact on the ground fishing industry in Maine, an industry made up of small, independently owned businesses, an industry made up of proud, independent men and women. They are already struggling to make a living, given all the other restrictions that have been imposed. The NMFS proposal would now make it virtually impossible for many ground fishermen to survive. It comes as a particular disappointment to me that Federal regulators did not consult with members of the fishing community when they were confronted with this Federal lawsuit. It is so frustrating that the National Marine Fisheries Service ignored the letter I sent them asking that they bring all the stakeholders to the table to work out a response to this lawsuit. Instead, Federal regulators essentially shut our fishermen out of the process, and that is one reason they came up with such an ill-conceived proposal that does not reflect the reality of earning a living as a fisherman in the State of Maine. The proposal put forth by Federal regulators is even more surprising because it comes at a time when both scientists and fishermen agree that ground fish stocks are rebounding, that the conservation efforts already underway, that the regulatory restrictions already in place are having a beneficial impact. Again I stress, our fishermen are in the forefront of conservation efforts. They are keenly aware of the importance of rebuilding the fishing stocks. After all, fewer fish mean fewer activities and fewer opportunities for our fishermen to make a living. In fact, Maine's fishing industry, working together with marine scientists, have been pioneers in the use of conservation techniques and self-regulation in fishing management, but our efforts to rebuild our ground fish stocks are only useful if a ground fish industry remains. Any effort to rebound ground fish stocks must guarantee the survival not only of the fish but of the fishermen. When I think of the amount of money that has been squandered in costly lawsuits, it is so unfortunate because those are funds that could have been put into research. Those are funds that could have been used to bring everybody to the table to work out and devise a commonsense solution to the problems of rebuilding the fishing stocks. Let me give an example of what the impact will be on one fisherman in Maine. I heard from a fisherman named Sam Viola about this issue. Sam is a fisherman from Portland, ME, who owns two 70-foot draggers and fishes for haddock, hake, and cod. His brother is a fisherman, as was Sam's dad. That is typical in Maine. Families, generation after generation, will go to the sea to earn a living. Sam said that finally, after years of scraping by due to catch restrictions and limits on fishing days per year designed to restore the ground fishery, he has been able to make a living to support himself and his family. He believes the seas are now teeming with fish. He has seen such a rebound in the stocks, and he is very worried that the latest regulations proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service will put him and many of his fellow fishermen out of business. I share the grave concerns of the responsible fishermen such as Sam and those fishermen with whom I talked on Friday night at the annual fisherman's forum. They are good people. They know the sea better than any regulator in Washington, DC. How unfortunate it is, how wrong it is, that Federal fishing regulators did not involve the people who know the Gulf of Maine the best: The fishermen who are out there earning a living. I am going to be working with my colleagues in both the House and the Senate and particularly with Maine's senior Senator, Ms. Olympia Snowe, who is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue, to develop a plan, to develop an alternative approach that recognizes we can both support our fishermen and have the seas teeming with fish. It is a false choice to say our fishermen can only go to sea half the number of days that they are now allowed, a restriction that is already extremely difficult for many fishermen and their families to accept. These further restrictions, the new approach proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, I fear, will spell the end for many Maine fishermen. It will make it simply impossible for them to earn a living; the restrictions are so onerous, so unreasonable, and so strict. We need a different approach, and I believe if Federal regulators had only taken the time to involve the experts in the industry, the men and women who are fishing in the Gulf of Maine, we would have come up with a far better approach, an approach that would not only continue the process of rebuilding the fishing stocks in Maine, in the Gulf of Maine, but also would allow our hard-working, proud, and independent fishermen to earn a living. This is an issue on which I will continue to be working with the Chair and others. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my colleague, his interpretation is correct. The minimum amount applies just to the State.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the bipartisan election reform legislation. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Jeffords, Burns, Leahy, Roberts, Brownback, Lincoln, Presiding Officer Ben Nelson, and Senators Nickles, Dorgan, Johnson, and Enzi in offering this commonsense addition to the Voting Rights Act. First, let me commend Senators Dodd, McConnell, Bond, and Schumer for working together to find common ground on what could have very easily turned out to be an issue that foundered on partisan politics. They refused to allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the fundamental and much-needed safeguards included in this election reform bill. I applaud their efforts, and I believe the amendment I am putting forward is consistent with their efforts and will pose a modest improvement to their legislation. This legislation makes substantial improvements that will help improve the voting system in every single State in America, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. The bill asks States to make major strides toward assurance that all people who are eligible to vote are allowed to vote, that voting locations are accessible to our citizens who are disabled, that a person is notified if his or her vote is incorrectly cast and given the opportunity to correct the error, and that each person's vote is counted. These voting safeguards are fundamental. They deserve Federal support. And since all States will be required to implement these new voting standards, no State should be denied Federal financial assistance in complying with these new requirements. The election reform bill authorizes $3.5 billion in grants to States and localities to help cover the costs associated with meeting the new standards. While the grant amounts are generous, there is a flaw. There is no guarantee in the bill that each State will receive a meaningful portion of the total allocation, even though each and every State must meet the same voting system requirements. Indeed, for a smaller State such as Nebraska or Maine, it may well be more burdensome to meet those voting requirements because those States may well have fewer resources to do so. For that matter, there is no guarantee that Congress will appropriate all or even a substantial portion of the authorized funds. Election officials in my home State of Maine, including our secretary of state, are concerned that the nature of the grant program would make it difficult for Maine to compete for funds with larger States, as well as potentially thousands of local governments. Maine currently has its hands full addressing a structural budget shortfall of approximately $160 million. Its financial difficulties would be exacerbated if it did not receive a meaningful portion of the grant funds included in this bill but nevertheless were required to comply with the statutory requirements for improving voting systems, preparing the statewide voting lists, and making voting places accessible to our disabled citizens--all very worthy but costly goals. Formula grant programs guarantee States a certain share of appropriated funds, but the grant program created by this bill does not. Rather, the legislation creates three different project grant programs to which States and local governments can apply for assistance. The grant programs are somewhat unusual in that once an application is approved, the Attorney General is required to award the applicant funds covering the ``cost of the activities described in that application.'' In other words, the legislation authorizes a specific sum of money to cover an unknown and perhaps unknowable amount of costs. Thus, no State is guaranteed the funds necessary to make progress toward this bill's voting system requirements. Again, let me emphasize that I think the voting requirements set forth in this compromise legislation are reasonable, are fundamental, are worthwhile. But I am concerned that some States may not receive any Federal funds to assist them in meeting these worthwhile new standards, and that does not strike me as fair. Conceivably, moreover, the funds could run out before a State has a chance to even complete and submit its application. My amendment addresses these concerns in a straightforward way. It would guarantee each State that submits the required application a fair portion of the funds that are eventually appropriated for election reform. My amendment would guarantee each State one-half of 1 percent of the total grant funds. These State minimums would only account for about 25 percent of the total appropriated grant funds, thus leaving 75 percent of the funds to be allocated through the application process originally set forth by this legislation. It would, however, remedy the problem of a State, particularly a small State, receiving no funds whatsoever. If we are going to mandate these requirements, we should ensure that each and every State receives some Federal assistance to comply with them. My amendment is both fair and consistent with similar grant programs created by Congress. For example, the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA provides each State with a base funding amount of one-half of 1 percent of appropriated funds. The remaining 75 percent of the Flood Mitigation Assistance funds is allocated by FEMA on the basis of applications. I could give many other examples of Federal grant programs that include minimum State allocations so that every State can be helped in achieving the Federal goals set forth by the programs. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act makes changes that will improve the integrity of our State voting systems. All States will be partners in this effort, which is why no State should be denied a share of Federal funds. The amendment I offer ensures that just and fair result. It will help each and every State meet the goals and the requirements of this important reform legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending second-degree amendment be temporarily laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 2915.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky for agreeing to the amendment and working so closely with us in its drafting. I very much appreciate their support as well as the tremendous work they have done on the underlying bill. I thank them both.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Caileen Nutter for the duration of the time for morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, to encourage parents and schools throughout our country to celebrate National Read Across America Day by reading to children. The resolution we submitted on February 15th asks parents to read to their children for at least 30 minutes on March 2, the birthday of Dr. Seuss. The resolution also honors Dr. Seuss for his success in helping to open children to the joys of reading. Five years ago, the National Education Association conducted the first Read Across America Day by providing teachers with resources to celebrate reading. The day was intended to promote reading activities not just on the day of the celebration, but throughout the year. Dr. Seuss' birthday was chosen for the celebration because, in the words of the NEA, ``he epitomizes a love of learning and his use of rhyme makes his books an effective tool for teaching young children the basic skills they need to be successful.'' In the last 5 years, more than 40 national education and reading associations have joined the NEA in making Read Across America the largest celebration of reading in the world. Groups such as the American Library Association, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the International Reading Association, Reading is Fundamental, and the Screen Actors Guild all have assisted in raising the profile of reading education and making this day a tremendous success. The importance of this day and this resolution is underscored by the challenge it addresses. Our Nation's early literacy problem is well documented. According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 20 million school-age children have difficulty reading. Only approximately 2.3 million of these children are served in special education under the category of learning disabilities. The remaining 17.7 million children who are poor readers do not meet the eligibility requirements for the learning disability category. Some are provided assistance in the form of compensatory education, but others are overlooked altogether. Often it is only after a child develops a significant problem that any intervention at all occurs. Typically, a child has reached the third or fourth grade before reading failure is diagnosed. At that point, what might have been a slight lag in learning had it been caught early has developed into a more serious and challenging learning disability. For students that have reached the third grade without the ability to read, every paragraph, every assignment, every day in the classroom is a struggle. They constantly battle embarrassment and feelings of inadequacy, fearing that their classmates, their friends, will discover they cannot read. It is no wonder so many children without basic reading skills lose their natural curiosity and excitement for learning, for reading is the gateway to academic success. Last year, the President and Congress worked together to complete a major reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, two new programs, Reading First and Early Reading First, will bring new federal resources for reading instruction and early reading intervention. I am delighted that my Reading First proposal was incorporated into the final education reform package, and even more excited that nearly $1 billion in Federal funding has been allocated to this initiative in the first year. It is my hope the new services will reach children before a problem develops and before they fall too far behind their peers. Although I have great faith that these new programs will effectively reduce the rate of reading failure throughout our country, nothing can replace the learning that takes place between parents and their children. Much of the learning and preparation that make reading possible occurs long before a child ever sets foot in a classroom. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, children who were read to three or more times in a week by their parents are almost twice as likely to be able to identify every letter of the alphabet. They are also more likely to be able to count to 20, write their own names, and read or pretend to read. It delights me to see the 2-year- old daughter of my chief of staff read to her stuffed animals. She takes a book, sits with them on the couch, and pretends to read them a story. When a child enters kindergarten already recognizing letters and familiar with books, she or he is better prepared to learn and less likely to encounter difficulty in learning to read. This year, the Maine Education Association is hosting festivities throughout the State on Read Across America Day, and I hope to attend Eliot Elementary School in York County this Friday to join in their celebration of reading. I encourage my colleagues not only to support this resolution, but also to make time to visit a classroom and help children discover the joys of reading. I can tell from first-hand experience that taking the time to read to children is not only a worthwhile investment but also a wonderful experience, and I know the Presiding Officer reads often to her twin sons and experiences that some joy. I have read to children in more than 70 schools across the State of Maine and never tire of the joy and satisfaction such experiences bring. I often read books by Maine authors, such as ``Blueberries for Sal,'' or ``Miss Rumphias'' to show children that they, too, can grow up to author books. I never tire of the joy and satisfaction of going into a classroom and reading to children. Indeed, Madam President, the last school I visited was the Edna Libby School in Standish, ME, a wonderful elementary school. I read to the students and I answered their questions. Then the reading coordinator presented me with a pin that I am wearing today. It is the ``Read Across America'' pin. It pictures the United States as well as Dr. Seuss's famous cat. That should be the inspiration for all of us. The NEA has graciously agreed to donate one dozen Dr. Seuss books to any school visited by a Senator on Friday, March 1. I congratulate the NEA for the success of its Read Across America Program, and I applaud all of our schoolteachers, librarians, and most of all, our parents, for their commitment for teaching reading. I hope we can pass this resolution this week in time for Reading Across America Day and bring even more attention to the benefits of parental involvement and reading to our children.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and dear friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing a ``Medicare Fairness'' package of bills that will ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine and Wisconsin that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. The good people of Maine pay the same payroll taxes to Medicare, and our seniors pay the same premiums, deductibles and copayments as Medicare beneficiaries in other parts of the country. Yet Maine's patients, physicians, hospitals and other providers receive far less from the program in return when it comes to Medicare payments. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the Nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending. The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. Maine's Medicare patients receive, on average, $3,856 worth of Medicare services per year, far below the national average of $5,034. By way of contrast, in the District of Columbia, Medicare patients receive about $15,620 in Medicare payments a year. Moreover, these dramatically higher payments have not bought any better care for the District's Medicare beneficiaries. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the District is ranked 34th out of 52, in the bottom third, when it comes to quality. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. This Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. Small businesses, for example, are facing increases of 20 to 30 percent, jeopardizing their ability to provide coverage for their employees. Moreover, the fact that Medicare underpays our hospitals and nursing facilities has significantly handicapped Maine's providers as they compete for nurses and other health care professionals in an increasingly tight labor market. As a recent study by Dr. John Wennberg of the Dartmouth Medical School points out, more Medicare spending does not necessarily buy better quality health care. According to the Dartmouth study, Medicare beneficiaries in high-cost states don't live any longer or enjoy better quality care. High cost states simply provide more care. They rely on inpatient and specialist care more than outpatient and primary care, and they tend to treat the chronically ill and those near death much more aggressively, with possible adverse effects on their quality of life. According to the Dartmouth study, this pattern of practice is driven not by medical evidence, but instead by community practice patterns and the availability of hospital beds. The legislative package we are introducing today will reform the current Medicare reimbursement system by reducing regional inequities in Medicare spending and providing incentives to hospitals and physicians to encourage the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective care. The first bill, the Physician Wage Fairness Act of 2001, will promote fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating the outdated geographic physician work adjustor in the physician fee schedule that has resulted in a significant differential in payment levels to urban and rural health care providers. We are concerned that the current formula does not accurately measure the cost of providing services. As a consequence, Medicare pays rural providers far less than it should for equal work. We also don't think that it makes sense to pay physicians more for their work in areas like New York City, which tend to have an oversupply of physicians, and pay physicians less for the same services in areas that are more likely to experience shortages. Eliminating the georgraphic physician work adjustor will bring an estimated $1 million a year in Medicare payments to physicians and other providers in Southern Maine and $3 million more to providers in the rest of Maine. The second bill, the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act of 2002, will authorize a series of demonstration programs to encourage high-quality, low-cost health care to Medicare beneficiaries. These programs would reward hospitals and physicians who deliver high quality care at a lower cost. It would also require that the states chosen for the pilot projects create a plan to increase the number of providers who deliver high-quality, cost-effective care to Medicare beneficiaries. A third bill, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act, will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use existing Graduate Medical Education funds to create a program to encourage hospitals in underserved areas to host clinical rotations to encourage more medical students to practice in these areas when they graduate. And finally, the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act will promote fairness in Medicare payments to nursing homes by collecting and using accurate nursing home wage data rather than, as is the current practice, using the inaccurate hospital wage data that discriminates against States like Maine. As Congress works to modernize Medicare, we must also restore basic fairness to the program and find ways to reward, rather than penalize, providers of high-quality, cost-effective care. This is what our legislation will do, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am following with great interest the work of the U.S. Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century, a Congressionally established panel co-chaired by Nancy Hooks of New York and Ellen Feingold of Massachusetts. Through a series of coast-to-coast field hearings, the ``Seniors Commission'' has launched an important nationwide dialogue on senior housing and health care issues, and the public policy challenges America is facing with the aging of the baby boom generation. The Seniors Commission is due to deliver its recommendations to Congress by June 30, 2002. I am hopeful that the work of this panel will help to produce a more effective, coordinated and efficient approach to housing and health services for seniors. Americans--young and old--can learn more about the commission and share their views with the commissioners by viewing the Seniors Commission's website-- www.seniorscommission.gov.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as we commemorate National Duchenne Awareness Week, I express my gratitude to my colleagues and to the Bush administration for their support late last year in passing H.R. 717, the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance Research and Education Act. Sadly, at this time, there is no cure for DMD. Little boys with DMD are most often not diagnosed before the age of 2 or 3 years. Most boys with DMD walk by themselves later than average, and then in an unusual manner. They may fall frequently, have difficulty rising from the ground, or experience difficulty going up steps. Calf muscles typically look over-developed or excessively large, while other muscles are poorly developed. Use of a wheelchair may be occasional at age 9, but total dependence is usually established in the teen years. Most boys affected survive into their twenties, with relatively few surviving beyond 30 years of age. I have heard from the parents and family of two little boys in Maine who have DMD. Their names are Matthew and Patrick Denger, and their family members are desperately hoping for a cure so they don't have to watch their sons suffer the long-term impacts of this debilitating disease. While we are far from finding a cure for DMD, I am hopeful that the MD CARE Act, signed into law by President Bush on December 18, 2001, will help Matthew and Patrick and the thousands of other young boys suffering from DMD. Specifically, the act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expand and increase coordination of the activities by the National Institutes of Health with respect to research on muscular dystrophies, including DMD. Efforts to improve the quality and length of life for thousands of children suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy are valuable beyond measure, and I commend all of my colleagues and all of the families who have worked so hard to raise awareness about this devastating disease.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and dear friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing a ``Medicare Fairness'' package of bills that will ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine and Wisconsin that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. The good people of Maine pay the same payroll taxes to Medicare, and our seniors pay the same premiums, deductibles and copayments as Medicare beneficiaries in other parts of the country. Yet Maine's patients, physicians, hospitals and other providers receive far less from the program in return when it comes to Medicare payments. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the Nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending. The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. Maine's Medicare patients receive, on average, $3,856 worth of Medicare services per year, far below the national average of $5,034. By way of contrast, in the District of Columbia, Medicare patients receive about $15,620 in Medicare payments a year. Moreover, these dramatically higher payments have not bought any better care for the District's Medicare beneficiaries. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the District is ranked 34th out of 52, in the bottom third, when it comes to quality. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. This Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. Small businesses, for example, are facing increases of 20 to 30 percent, jeopardizing their ability to provide coverage for their employees. Moreover, the fact that Medicare underpays our hospitals and nursing facilities has significantly handicapped Maine's providers as they compete for nurses and other health care professionals in an increasingly tight labor market. As a recent study by Dr. John Wennberg of the Dartmouth Medical School points out, more Medicare spending does not necessarily buy better quality health care. According to the Dartmouth study, Medicare beneficiaries in high-cost states don't live any longer or enjoy better quality care. High cost states simply provide more care. They rely on inpatient and specialist care more than outpatient and primary care, and they tend to treat the chronically ill and those near death much more aggressively, with possible adverse effects on their quality of life. According to the Dartmouth study, this pattern of practice is driven not by medical evidence, but instead by community practice patterns and the availability of hospital beds. The legislative package we are introducing today will reform the current Medicare reimbursement system by reducing regional inequities in Medicare spending and providing incentives to hospitals and physicians to encourage the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective care. The first bill, the Physician Wage Fairness Act of 2001, will promote fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating the outdated geographic physician work adjustor in the physician fee schedule that has resulted in a significant differential in payment levels to urban and rural health care providers. We are concerned that the current formula does not accurately measure the cost of providing services. As a consequence, Medicare pays rural providers far less than it should for equal work. We also don't think that it makes sense to pay physicians more for their work in areas like New York City, which tend to have an oversupply of physicians, and pay physicians less for the same services in areas that are more likely to experience shortages. Eliminating the georgraphic physician work adjustor will bring an estimated $1 million a year in Medicare payments to physicians and other providers in Southern Maine and $3 million more to providers in the rest of Maine. The second bill, the Medicare Value and Quality Demonstration Act of 2002, will authorize a series of demonstration programs to encourage high-quality, low-cost health care to Medicare beneficiaries. These programs would reward hospitals and physicians who deliver high quality care at a lower cost. It would also require that the states chosen for the pilot projects create a plan to increase the number of providers who deliver high-quality, cost-effective care to Medicare beneficiaries. A third bill, the Graduate Medical Education Demonstration Act, will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use existing Graduate Medical Education funds to create a program to encourage hospitals in underserved areas to host clinical rotations to encourage more medical students to practice in these areas when they graduate. And finally, the Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Information Improvement Act will promote fairness in Medicare payments to nursing homes by collecting and using accurate nursing home wage data rather than, as is the current practice, using the inaccurate hospital wage data that discriminates against States like Maine. As Congress works to modernize Medicare, we must also restore basic fairness to the program and find ways to reward, rather than penalize, providers of high-quality, cost-effective care. This is what our legislation will do, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the William Randolph Hearst U.S. Senate Youth Program. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Breaux, who serves with me as a co-chair of the 40th anniversary program, as well as Senators Hutchison, Domenici, Lugar, and Levin, who all serve on the advisory committee. As the first graduate of the program to become a U.S. Senator, I can honestly say that the week I spent in Washington in 1971, as one of two delegates from Maine, profoundly influenced my life and career. Even though my family has a long and proud tradition of public service, my great grandfather, my grandfather and my father all served in the State legislature, and both of my parents served as mayor of Caribou, ME, it was the week I spent in Washington with the Senate Youth Program that caused me to seriously consider a career in the public sector. For the past 40 years, the Senate Youth Program has selected two of the brightest and most active students in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools abroad to spend a week learning about our Nation's government first-hand. Over the years, over 4,000 such students have participated in the program and gone on to serve our Nation in various capacities, having seen first-hand what it means to serve in what has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. The continued generosity of the William Randolph Hearst Foundation enables students to come to the District of Columbia and see a side of government that few Americans see in their lifetime. Each year the delegates meet with top members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. I remember how fascinated I was as a delegate to listen to Senators Byrd and Thurmond speak to us about the history of the Senate and the issues of the day. But the highlight of my week was the time I spent talking with my home State Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. I went to Senator Smith's office hoping to shake her hand; instead, she took me into her private office and spent 2 hours talking with me about the importance of public service and the difference one person can make. When I left her office, I remember feeling so proud that she was my Senator and that I could do anything I set my mind to. So, today it is my pleasure to sponsor this resolution paying tribute to the more than 4,000 delegates who have participated in the Senate Youth Program over the past 40 years, some of whom we may see here in the Congress, at the Supreme Court, or even in the White House in years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that legislation I authored has been included in the final version of the farm bill. The legislation, known as the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act, would help to combat the threat of suburban sprawl which has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in the southern part of my home State. I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, as well as Senators Jack Reed and Mike Crapo, who have worked with me to put together this initiative. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farmland cannot compete with the value of developed land. In my home State, the problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where over a 100-percent increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in Greater Portland being labeled as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.'' I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space that has given way to strip malls and cul-du-sacs. Our State is trying hard to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine have approved a bond issue to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future board, and they continue to use scarce local funds and contribute their time and money to preserve special lands and to support our State's 88 land trusts. Of course, the problem of sprawl is not limited just to Maine or to the Northeast. Rapid, unmanageable growth affects many States and poses a significant threat to forest land across the United States. The effects of sprawl were highlighted by a study conducted by the U.S. Forest Service last year. It examined forests in 13 southern States and found that 12 million acres of southern forest land could be lost to sprawl by the year 2020. In Maine and elsewhere, communities are working hard to come up with new strategies to protect our working forests and to safeguard our communities from the effects of sprawl. I think it is time for the Federal Government to lend a hand to these efforts. My legislation, which was drafted with the advice of landowners, conservation groups, and forestry experts, would establish a $50 million grant program within the Forest Service to support locally driven projects that preserve working forests. State and local governments as well as nonprofit organizations could compete for funds to purchase land or conservation easements to keep forest lands in their traditional uses. The $50 million that would be authorized by my legislation would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, it would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industries. Second, the resources made available would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to properly manage growth and prevent sprawl. Currently, if a community were to turn to the Federal Government for assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving decisionmaking to States and communities. Mr. President, by enacting this legislation, Congress will provide a much needed boost to local conservation initiatives and will help sustain the vitality of our natural-resource-based communities. I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement from the Maine Nature Conservancy, the Maine Audubon Society, and the National Association of State Foresters be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Torricelli, Snowe, and Cochran in introducing the Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2002 to improve patients' access to the colorectal cancer screening benefit under Medicare. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States for both men and women: more than 57,000 Americans will die from this disease this year, yet it is a disease that many of us feel uncomfortable discussing. The sad irony is that cancer of the colon is probably the most treatable and survivable of all cancers, but only if it is caught early. If detected and treated early, colon cancer is curable in more than 90 percent of diagnosed cases. Conversely, if the cancer is detected in an advanced stage, death rates are high. As many as 92 percent of these patients will die within five years. Despite the fact that we have extremely effective screening tests for colon cancer, our screening rates for colon cancer, even among those Americans who are most at risk, are woefully low. Moreover, even the addition in 1998 of a new Medicare benefit covering these services has not improved the situation. In 2000, the General Accounting Office, GAO, conducted a review of claims data to determine the extent to which this new preventive health service has been used. According to the GAO, only 3.8 percent of Medicare patients received either a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in 1999, far below the recommended use rates and just a one percent increase over the rate in 1995. Clearly we must find ways to heighten public awareness about the importance of colon cancer screening and remove any remaining barriers that may be preventing Medicare beneficiaries from receiving these critically important services. While the GAO identified a lack of patient awareness, understanding and inclination as the most significant factors inhibiting the use of colorectal cancer screening services, it also found that physician practices affect rates of screening. One factor is the inadequate Medicare reimbursement rates to cover the costs involved. Medicare reimbursement rates for this procedure have declined in recent years and are almost universally lower than reimbursements under private insurance. Moreover, in many States, the Medicare rates are lower than Medicaid rates. Our legislation will therefore increase the Medicare payment rates for colonoscopies performed both in hospitals and outpatient settings. Specifically, the payment rates in hospitals and outpatient facilities would be increased by 30 percent, while payment for procedures done in physicians' offices would be increased by 10 percent. Our legislation will also require Medicare to provide reimbursements for pre-procedure consultations to ensure that beneficiaries are properly prepared and educated before they undergo a screening colonoscopy. Medicare currently only pays for the pre-procedure appointment prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy. This pre-procedure visit is no less necessary in the case of a screening colonoscopy and should be covered. Finally, under our legislation, the normal Part B deductible will not apply for screening colonoscopy, just as it does not apply for screening mammography. This will remove a financial disincentive for seniors to seek screening and increase the likelihood that they will undergo screening colonoscopy. The Colon Cancer Screen for Your Life Act of 2002 will not only help to ensure the safety of colorectal cancer screenings, but it will also increase Medicare patients' access to this life-saving procedure, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Frist, Lieberman, DeWine, Roberts, and Sessions to introduce the Math, Science, and Special Education Teacher Recruitment Act of 2002. I particularly want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his tireless efforts and his leadership on this issue. The legislation we have before us today is, in large part, a product of his commitment to affordable education. I would also like to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his assistance and his dedication to solving America's teacher shortage. The legislation we are introducing is designed to recruit teachers with an expertise in math, science, or special education to work in schools with high concentrations of low-income students by offering substantial assistance with their student loan payments. All across our Nation, public schools are struggling to fill teaching positions with qualified teachers. In the 2001-2002 school year, administrators had to hire an estimated 200,000 new teachers just to maintain the current teacher/student radio. Although universities continue to produce a greater number of teachers each year, the profession is losing too many of its most qualified and experienced personnel to retirement. In Maine, for example, 30.2 percent of teachers are over the age of 50. With such a large portion of the profession nearing retirement, additional replacements will be needed in the next few years. The national teaching shortage is expected to continue throughout the next decade, making it more and more difficult for schools to find qualified instructors. Attracting new faculty is difficult enough, but finding applicants with backgrounds in math, science, or special education can be particularly demanding. Among first year teachers, approximately 55 percent graduated from college with a bachelors in general education. Many more graduated with liberal arts degrees or majors unrelated to the curriculum they teach. The result is a system where only 38 percent of public school teachers hold subject-matter specific degrees. In Maine, the shortage of qualified applicants is most severe with regard to math, science, special education, and foreign languages. Eighty nine percent of our high schools reported a shortage in math teachers, and 87 percent reported a shortage of science teachers. With the recent developments in technology and computing, it is becoming more important than ever that our schoolchildren enter the workforce with a firm grasp of math and science. Yet, it is more and more difficult to attract math and science specialists to the teaching profession. As for special education, the Council for Exceptional Children reports that 50,000 special education positions were unfilled or filled by teachers without a full certification. If this teacher shortage is a burden on suburban school districts with ample resources, you can imagine the strain it puts on high poverty school systems. Problems are amplified in high-need areas: Teachers are likely to be the least experienced, often just out of school, they are less likely to hold a masters degree, and they are less likely to have majored in their field of instruction. To help deal with this epidemic, Senator FRIST and I put together a proposal that would expand the current loan forgiveness program for math and science teachers who are willing to teach in high-poverty areas. Under the Act, teachers who commit to teach for five consecutive years in a low-income/high-need area would be eligible for $17,500 in loan forgiveness instead of the current benefit of $5,000. To meet the pressing need for special educators, the proposal would also make special educators eligible for the loan assistance for the first time. We expect this legislation will expand upon the successes of the current program and encourage a greater number of college graduates to enter the teaching profession. We are also hopeful that it will encourage more of the best qualified teachers to consider teaching in high need areas. We are delighted that the President has included $45 million in his budget for a similar proposal. Once again, President Bush has chosen to make education a priority, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration on this important piece of legislation.