Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Imported Food Safety Act of 2001. Food safety has been a serious public health concern in America for some time, but our awareness of the vulnerability of our food supply has been heightened since September 11. I have long been concerned about the adequacy of our Nation's imported food supply system. In 1998, in my capacity as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I began an in-depth 16 month investigation into the safety of food imports. This investigation revealed much about the government's flawed food safety net. Regrettably, in the intervening three years, little has changed, and now we must acknowledge that those systemic shortcomings can also be used by those who wish to perpetrate acts of bioterrorism. As part of the investigation, I requested the GAO to evaluate the federal government's efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods. In its April 1998 report, the GAO concluded that ``federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods are inconsistent and unreliable.'' Just last month, the GAO reiterated that conclusion in testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. During five days of Subcommittee hearings, we heard testimony from 29 witnesses, including scientists, industry and consumer representatives, government officials, the General Accounting Office, and two persons with first-hand knowledge of the seamier side of the imported food industry, a convicted Customs broker and a convicted former FDA inspector. Let me briefly recount some of the Subcommittee's findings which make it clear why this legislation is so urgently needed: weaknesses in FDA import controls, specifically the ability of importers to control food shipments from the port to the point of distribution, make the system vulnerable to fraud and deception and clearly to a terrorist attack; the bonds required to be posted by importers who violate food safety laws are so low that they are considered by some unscrupulous importers as the cost of doing business; maintaining the food safety net for imported food is an increasingly complex task, made more complicated by previously unknown foodborne pathogens, like Cyclospora, that are difficult to detect; our recent experience with anthrax has taught us that there is much more public health officials need to know to ensure the safety of our food; because some imported food can be contaminated by substances that cannot be detected by visual inspection, grant programs need to be established that will encourage the rapid development of food safety monitoring sensors that are capable of detecting chemical and biological contaminants; since contamination of imported food can occur at many different places from the farm to the table, the ability to trace outbreaks of foodborne illnesses back to the source of contamination requires more coordinated effort among Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for ensuring food safety, as well as improved education for health care providers so that they can better recognize and treat foodborne illnesses. Again, our recent experience with anthrax underscores the need for better coordination and education. Since the terrorist attacks that occurred just weeks ago, we have been living in a changed world. We are battling enemies who show no regard for the value of human life, and whose twisted minds seek to destroy those who embody democracy and freedom. It has never been as important as it is now to ensure that our food supplies are adequately protected against contamination, both inadvertent and intentional. President Bush and his Administration are acting swiftly and decisively on all fronts. Among the responsibilities of the Office of Homeland Security is the protection of our livestock and agricultural systems from terrorist attack. And the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, has been working tirelessly to obtain the additional tools necessary to combat bioterrorism. On October 17, 2001, Secretary Thompson appeared before the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee, and testified about the Federal Government's efforts to ensure that the country is adequately prepared to respond to bioterrorist threats. He identified food safety and, in particular, imported foods, as vulnerable areas that require further strengthening. Similarly, at a recent hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, public health experts were unanimous in expressing concern about the vulnerability of our food. Weak import controls make our system all too easy to circumvent. After all, FDA only inspects fewer than one percent of all imported food shipments that arrive in our country. Those shipments are sent from countries around the world, most of whom wish us no harm. Yet, because of the hard lessons we have had to learn since September 11, we must be more vigilant about protecting ourselves. It is vital that we take the necessary steps to close the loopholes that unscrupulous shippers have used in the past and that bioterrorists could exploit now. I first became concerned about the safety of the U.S. food supply in 1998 when I learned that fruit from Mexico and Guatemala was associated with three multi-state outbreaks of foodborne illnesses that sickened thousands of Americans. Regrettably, those type of outbreaks are far too common. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses occur each year. Fortunately, the majority of these incidents are mild and cause symptoms for only a day or two. Less fortunately, the CDC also estimates that over 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths result from those 76 million cases. And as astonishingly high as those numbers are, they are estimates, and the truth may be even more deadly. It was because of my concern that I began the Subcommittee's investigation of the adequacy of our country's imported food safety system. During the Subcommittee's hearings, the testimony I heard was troubling. The United States Customs Service told us of one particularly egregious situation. It involves contaminated fish and illustrates the challenges facing federal regulators who are charged with ensuring the safety of our Nation's food supply. In 1996, Federal inspectors along our border with Mexico opened a shipment of seafood destined for sales to restaurants in Los Angeles. The shipment was dangerously tainted with life-threatening contaminants, including botulism, Salmonella, and just plain filth. Much to the surprise of the inspectors, this shipment of frozen fish had been inspected before by Federal authorities. Alarmingly, in fact, it had arrived at our border two years before, and had been rejected by the FDA as unfit for consumption. Its importers then held this rotten shipment for two years before attempting to bring it into the country again, by a different route. The inspectors only narrowly prevented this poisoned fish from reaching American plates. And what happened to the importer who tried to sell this deadly food to American consumers? In effect, nothing. He was placed on probation and asked to perform 50 hours of community service. I suppose we should be thankful that the perpetrators were caught in this case. After all, the unsafe food might have escaped detection and reached our tables. But it worries me that the importer essentially received a slap on the wrist. I believe that forfeiting the small amount of money currently required for the Custom's bond, which some importers now consider no more than a ``cost of doing business,'' does little to deter unscrupulous importers from trying to slip tainted fish that is two years old past overworked Customs agents. It is imperative that Congress provide our Federal agencies with the direction, resources, and authority necessary to protect our food supply from acts of bioterrorism and to keep unsafe, unsanitary food out of the United States. I have worked with the FDA, the Customs Service, and the CDC to ensure that my legislation corrects many of the vulnerabilities that have been identified in our imported food safety system. Let me describe what this bill is designed to accomplish. My legislation will fill the existing gaps in the food import system and provide the FDA with stronger authority to protect American consumers against tainted food imports. First and foremost, this bill gives the FDA the authority to stop such food from entering our country. My bill would authorize FDA to deny the entry of imported food that has caused repeated outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, presents a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences, and is likely without systemic changes to cause disease again. Second, this legislation would enable the FDA to require secure storage of shipments offered by repeat offenders prior to their release into commerce. Unscrupulous shippers who have demonstrated a willingness to knowingly send tainted food to our country cannot be overlooked as potential sources of bioterrorist acts. My bill would also prohibit the practice of ``port-shopping,'' and would require that boxes containing violative foods that have been refused entry into our country be clearly marked. This latter authority is currently used with success by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My bill also would require the destruction of certain imported foods that cannot be adequately reconditioned to ensure safety. Third, the legislation would direct the FDA to develop criteria for use by private laboratories to collect and analyze samples of food offered for import. This will ensure the integrity of the testing process. Fourth, the bill would give ``teeth'' to the current food import system by establishing two strong deterrents, the threats of higher bonds and of debarment, for unscrupulous importers who repeatedly violate U.S. law. No longer will the industry's ``bad actors'' be able to profit from endangering the health of American consumers. Finally, my bill would authorize the CDC to award grants to state and local public health agencies to strengthen the public health infrastructure by updating essential items such as laboratory and electronic-reporting equipment. Grants would also be available for universities, non-profit corporations, and industrial partners to develop new and improved sensors and tests to detect pathogens and for professional schools and professional societies to develop programs to increase the awareness of foodborne illness among healthcare providers and the public. We are truly fortunate that the American food supply is one of the safest in the world. But our system for safeguarding our people from imported food that has been tainted, either intentionally or inadvertently, is flawed. Finally, I am very pleased to also be working with my colleagues on bipartisan bioterrorism legislation that targets problems posed by bioterrorist threats to our Nation's food supply and public health. I believe that the measures provided for in my Imported Food Safety Act of 2001, and the bipartisan bioterrorism bill, will significantly reduce the threat to our country. I hope that we will pass both pieces of legislation this year.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of land in the north to the small woodlots of the south, forest land helps shape the character of our entire State. While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for generations, there is a new threat to Maine's forest that requires a new approach. The threat is suburban sprawl, which has already consumed tens-of- thousands of acres of forest land in southern Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land cannot compete with the value of developed land. The problem is particularly acute here in southern Maine where a 108 percent increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of greater Portland 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-de-sacs. Our State is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine have approved a $50- million bond to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future Board, and continue to use scarce local funds and contribute their time and money to preserve important lands and to support our State's 88 land trusts. The people of Maine are forging a new approach to preserving our working forest and protecting our communities from sprawl. It is time for the Federal Government to support these efforts. Today I am introducing the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act. The legislation, which was drafted with the advice of land owners, conservation groups, and community planners, establishes a $50-million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally-driven projects that preserve working forests. State and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, would compete for funds to purchase land or conservation easements to keep forest lands, threatened by development, in their traditional use. Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. The legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched dollar-for- dollar with State, local, or private resources. The grant program will help promote sustainable forestry and public access to forest lands. My legislation protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision and it allows non-profits, States, and municipalities--but not the Federal Government--to hold title to land or easements purchased under the program. The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, my legislation would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most important industry. Second, the resources made available as part of my legislation would be a valuable tool in communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl. Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME or another community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turned 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 decision-making at the State and local level. We can all be proud of the work being done in Maine to protect our working forests for the next generation, and I am grateful that many of the people and organizations that are leading this effort are supporting my legislation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative Act Congress can provide a real boost to conservation initiatives, help preserve sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to commend the service of Steve Adams, who is ending his term on the Board of Directors for the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Steve has offered exceptional service to the Institute, and in the process helped to improve our region's economic development and environmental quality. The Northeast-Midwest Institute provides policy analysis for the bipartisan Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I co-chair with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Steve Adams, whom I met when he directed the Maine State Planning Office, is now with the Pioneer Institute in Boston. He was formerly a vice president with the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, debt management assistant in the Office of the Treasurer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a senior policy analyst with the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. I want to thank Steve Adams for his leadership on the Northeast- Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. He has provided valued service and helped increase that organization's reputation and effectiveness.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on my amendment that would express the sense of the Senate regarding the release of emergency funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I thank the administration for the significant release of LIHEAP funds 2 weeks ago. As OMB Director Mitch Daniels and I discussed just before the funds were released, this money is critical to Maine and the Nation. I thank both Mr. Daniels and the President for releasing $750 million in fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP funds to help low-income American families heat their homes this winter. While I am grateful for the release of these funds, I also call upon the administration to release the $300 million in fiscal year 2001 emergency funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001. This amount was $150 million greater than the administration's request. The report language specifically directed that at least $150 million of these funds were to be used to address unmet needs resulting from last winter's high energy prices. The other half of the money was directed to be used to meet the most critical needs arising from energy costs increases, significant increases in arrearages and disconnections, and increases in unemployment, among other things. Despite this direction, the money still has not been released. Let me explain why those extra funds are necessary. Last winter was a very difficult winter. The price of home heating oil was $1.56 last winter, compared to $1.03 the winter before and just 78 cents the winter before that. In short, heating oil prices jumped 100 percent in just 2 years. In many cases we saw even worse spikes in the price of natural gas. At the same time, the average LIHEAP benefit fell by over $100, from $488 in 1999 to $350 in 2000. Because so many people were in need of assistance, the CAP agencies simply didn't have enough money to provide the same benefit that they had in prior years. The result was that the average LIHEAP benefit bought less than half the oil in 2000 than it did in 1999. That made for a very difficult winter for many people. In fact, many people are still trying to recover last winter's high energy prices. This past summer, some families had their power cut off because they were unable to pay back their high wintertime heating bills. In Maine, 26,000 people received disconnect notices in the month of July alone. While I am grateful for the administration's recent release of LIHEAP funds, that money will do little to help people recover from last winter. In the State of Maine, regular year fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP money cannot be used to address arrearages or disconnections that occurred prior to October 1, 2001. That is one of the reasons we put an extra $150 million in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, and included language in the conference report directing that the money be spent on arrearages, disconnections, and unmet energy needs resulting from the high price of energy last winter. Some States allow fiscal year 2002 funds to be spent on prior year expenses. While that may provide short-term assistance, spending this year's funds on last year's winter is likely to lead to a shortage of funds this winter as well. It is not a real solution. I am also concerned that States will be able to provide less weatherization assistance this year. Since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, Maine typically spends the maximum allowable amount of LIHEAP funds to weatherize homes. But when we are still struggling to recover from the prior winter, less money is available for weatherization. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should immediately release the $300 million in emergency LIHEAP funding provided by the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001. I am very pleased that Senators Chafee, Kerry, Snowe, Wellstone, and Sarbanes have also joined me on this amendment. This money was intended to help people recover from the high energy prices of last winter. It will help many of those families most in need of assistance. In these difficult economic times, there is just no reason not to release money that has already been appropriated that will help people get through the winter. I would like to thank the managers of the bill, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, for accepting this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. Last year, Senator Reed and I offered an amendment set aside of $10 million in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), funds to provide grants to assist communities in providing treatment services that will serve the needs of their homeless populations. With the help of the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa, who have done so much through the years to help the homeless, our amendment was adopted. This year, we are seeking to ensure that $16 million in SAMHSA funds are set aside to serve the needs of homeless individuals. We respect the chairman's wishes that SAMHSA earmarks not be made specifically in bill language, and, accordingly, we will not offer my amendment on the floor. We would ask, however, whether the chairman and ranking member will advocate for the $16 million set-aside in the conference report to this bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, Senator Reed and I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in a colloquy on the important issue of substance abuse treatment for the homeless. Our goal, which I know the chairman and ranking member share, is to ensure that homeless individuals have access to substance abuse treatment. While their most apparent need is decent shelter, homeless men and women often require treatment for the underlying problem that has kept them on the street, which in many cases is drug and alcohol abuse. Compounding the problem is the reality that homeless people often have difficulty accessing mainstream treatment services. What is needed are treatment programs specifically tailored to our homeless population.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator Lincoln for her kind words and for her commitment to TRIO. Just as in Arkansas, many of the students in Maine grow up in families that have not had experience with higher education. The TRIO programs are vital in raising the aspirations of these students. Senator Lincoln has consistently fought to raise the aspirations of high school students, inspiring kids to strive for their full potential. It has been my pleasure to work with her, and I look forward to continued cooperation on behalf of TRIO. I would also thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their commitment to education funding. Under their leadership, the committee has produced a Labor-HHS-Education bill that provides a $6.3 billion increase in education spending for next year, including substantial investments in Reading First, Title I, Pell Grants, and rural education. The investments outlined in this bill will build upon the progress of the last few years and help us ensure that all students have an opportunity to achieve. Although the bill does not provide the amount we had hoped for to fund TRIO, it does appropriate a considerable increase of $75 million, which will be very helpful. The five TRIO Programs--Educational Opportunity Centers, the Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program, Student Support Services, Talent Search and Upward Bound--work with young people and adults, from the sixth grade through college graduation. Over 1,200 colleges, universities and agencies offer almost 2,500 TRIO Programs, serving over 740,000 students throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Pacific Islands. These programs have enjoyed broad-based support on both sides of the aisle and in local communities for over 30 years. Father James Nadeau, a native of my hometown in Aroostook County, is a graduate of the Bowdoin College Upward Bound program. His story tells why the TRIO programs are so important. His parents did not have the opportunity to pursue an education beyond the eighth grade. Father Jim's participation in Upward Bound changed his life and opened up a world of opportunity to him. Beginning in 1977, Father Jim spent three summers enrolled in Upward Bound and then attended Dartmouth College and studied in France and Scotland. Subsequently, he studied for 5 years at the Gregorian University in Rome and received two graduate degrees in theology. His ministry has spanned from Mother Teresa in Calcutta to school children in Portland, Maine and continues to affect lives all over the world. He is an excellent role model for the youth of Maine and remains a terrific example of the success of the TRIO programs. There are many similar stories of TRIO graduates in all professions and walks of life. These are stories of successful, educated individuals who were introduced by a TRIO program to the endless possibilities that become attainable through education. Nationally, the current funding level for TRIO only allows approximately 6 percent of the eligible population to be served. Many students in my own state would not go to college without these important federal programs. In Maine, 15 TRIO programs serve 5,509 young people and adults and I have been very impressed by the impact these programs have on aspirations. Many Maine students have told me that the TRIO programs gave them the confidence and encouragement they needed to succeed in higher education. As we complete the appropriations process, I would ask that we place a continued emphasis on the important federal responsibility to expand access to postsecondary education. It is critical that we reach our target of serving at least 10 percent of the eligible population over the next 5 years. I urge the chairman and ranking member to continue their support of TRIO by protecting the proposed appropriation in conference committee. I also ask that TRIO receive an increased appropriation, should discretionary funds become available. For example, if IDEA is funded with mandatory funds during the ESEA reauthorization process, I hope that TRIO will be one of the programs that benefits. On a related note, I should point out that Chairman Harkin has been a leader in the effort to secure mandatory funding for IDEA and I commend his commitment to that crucial issue. In closing, the TRIO programs promote opportunity to education and the possibility of upward mobility in this Nation, and they must be strengthened.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Maryland for their extraordinary leadership in shining the spotlight on a very dark, dark part of the Earth. We, the women of the Senate, represent different States, different ideologies, and are from different backgrounds, but we are united in our determination to expose the horrendous treatment of the women and children of Afghanistan. We are determined to help them in every way possible. It was our colleague from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, who first brought to my attention an excellent CNN documentary called ``Women Behind the Veil,'' which demonstrated the appalling treatment by the Taliban of the women of Afghanistan. Women are not allowed to be educated. That, to me, says it all because by denying women an education, you are denying them knowledge, awareness, and opportunity. I am happy to join with the Senator from Texas, my colleague, Mrs. Hutchison, and the Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Ms. Mikulski, in this excellent initiative. I hope all of our colleagues will join in supporting this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Maryland for their extraordinary leadership in shining the spotlight on a very dark, dark part of the Earth. We, the women of the Senate, represent different States, different ideologies, and are from different backgrounds, but we are united in our determination to expose the horrendous treatment of the women and children of Afghanistan. We are determined to help them in every way possible. It was our colleague from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, who first brought to my attention an excellent CNN documentary called ``Women Behind the Veil,'' which demonstrated the appalling treatment by the Taliban of the women of Afghanistan. Women are not allowed to be educated. That, to me, says it all because by denying women an education, you are denying them knowledge, awareness, and opportunity. I am happy to join with the Senator from Texas, my colleague, Mrs. Hutchison, and the Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Ms. Mikulski, in this excellent initiative. I hope all of our colleagues will join in supporting this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, every American is struggling to cope with the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent events. Among those on the front lines in addressing these disasters are our military Reservists and members of our National Guard. Not only are these men and women grappling with the consequences of the catastrophe and the rigors of being mobilized for active duty, but many of them are also forced to worry about leaving college in the middle of their courses and making continued payments on their student loans. Will their tuition be reimbursed for courses that are interrupted? How will they keep up with their student loan payments while they are on active duty? In my State of Maine, more than 10 percent of our National Guard members are making payments on their student loans and are faced with these very questions. As these Guard members and Reservists prepare to serve their country, the least we can do is alleviate their concerns about making payments on their student loans while they are on active duty. Some of the families directly affected by the tragedies of September 11 are facing similar dilemmas. The dislocation in New York City and elsewhere caused by the terrorist attacks has jeopardized the ability of some individuals to meet their payment schedules on their student loans. Lending institutions located in New York City are encountering yet another set of difficulties. A number of lenders are headquartered within a few blocks of ground zero. They, understandably, have been unable to meet the due diligence requirements set forth by the Department of Education. Several firms, in fact, were not even able to access their office buildings for many days after the attacks, let alone meet filing deadlines. With those Guard members, Reservists, affected families, and lending institutions in mind, I am pleased today to introduce the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001. My colleagues, Senators Gregg, Reed, Warner, and Sessions, as well as the Presiding Officer, Senator Johnson, whose support and leadership I value greatly, have signed on as original cosponsors. The HEROS Act grants the Secretary of Education specific waiver authority under the Higher Education Act to provide relief to those affected by the recent attacks on America. The Secretary would be empowered to assist Reservists and Guard members who are being called up for active duty as well as others directly affected by the attacks. The Secretary's new authority would be limited to ensuring that military personnel and civilians are in the same financial position as they were prior to the terrorist attacks with respect to their student loans. And it has been drafted so as to not impair the integrity of the student loan programs. The Secretary of Education is given some discretion under the Higher Education Act to defer payments on student loans. But this authority does not go far enough. The HEROS Act would empower the Secretary to take several additional steps to provide needed relief to help those directly affected by the terrorist attacks. Specifically, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to relax repayment obligations for Guard members and Reservists called up to active duty, to provide a period of time during which the victims and their families may reduce or delay monthly student loan payments, and to assist educational institutions and lenders with reporting requirements. All of these steps can be taken while still ensuring the integrity of our student loan programs. This legislation is modeled on a previous law that was enacted during the Gulf War to provide relief for our men and women in the military. In short, there is precedent for authorizing the Secretary of Education to provide these kinds of relief. I am pleased to be joined by five of my colleagues in introducing this bill, and I thank them all for their support. I also commend Representative McKeon for his leadership on the House version of the HEROS Act. His initiative will help ensure that we provide adequate student loan relief to Reservists, Guard members, and victims' families. I look forward to the swift passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred at this time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I echo the words of the Senator from Nevada. We have all been impressed with the tremendous grace and strength that our Senate majority leader has shown under unbelievable pressure. Our thoughts are with him and with his staff as they continue to go through this ordeal. He has, indeed, made every Member proud by his actions during this difficult time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, for today's passage of the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this reauthorization. The American Academy of Pediatricians said it best. They saluted this law which we are now extending as being the single most important policy development to improve children's health that this body has ever taken. I am delighted to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. I believe it will help facilitate breakthroughs in pharmaceutical treatments of children by ensuring proper testing and dosage. I commend the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Ohio for their excellent leadership. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1570 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. As does the Senator from Georgia, I view this matter as one of national importance, deriving from the policies of the Department of Defense, which fall within the oversight of our Committee. I also share his concerns because, as does he and many of our colleagues, I have constituents who depend on the forest products industry for their livelihood. I am also pleased that we have agreed to this colloquy as a bipartisan expression of our mutual concern over the current Department of Defense release authority for sebacic acid. Having taken this measured step this year, I will monitor the impact of Department of Defense sebacic acid release on the market, and will be ready to join my colleagues in taking legislative action as required. The fact that an additional amount of acid is being released now, due to the acknowledged contracting miscues on the part of Department of Defense officials last year, is a further indication that we must be prepared to act in our oversight role to restrict future releases of sebacic acid. The horrible acts of terrorism that befell us on September 11 have had an effect on our economy. I believe the Department must take current economic conditions into account as it implements its releases of sebacic acid over the coming year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of energy policy to our national security and to urge my colleagues to speed passage of the Department of Defense Authorization bill. A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The United States is currently 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 2020, this number could rise to 70 percent. At that time, over 64 percent of the world's oil exports will come from Persian Gulf nations. I shudder to think what could happen if we allow ourselves to not only become so dependent on foreign oil, but also for our nation to become so dependent on such an unstable part of the world. Senator Chuck Schumer and I have spent a great deal of time developing a balanced, bipartisan energy plan which both increases supply and decreases demand. Our plan would increase American self reliance by reducing the need for energy imports. Our plan would also benefit consumers by reducing energy prices. We have a lot of good ideas, and, at the right time and on the right vehicle, we would like the opportunity to have them considered by the Senate. However, now is not the right time and the Defense Authorization bill is not the right vehicle. Our first priorities must be to provide assistance to victims, to prevent future attacks, and to punish those responsible for the horrible acts of terror that occurred on September 11. A sound energy policy is critically important to the long-term viability of our national defense, as well as to virtually every segment of society. We cannot, however, respond to terrorist attacks by rushing through a controversial energy bill that will affect the course of domestic policy in the United States for decades to come. Indeed, California has shown us what can happen when poor energy policies are hastily adopted. Californians will suffer from excessive energy prices for years upon years as a result of a poorly conceived energy plan. We should not risk similarly burdening all Americans by hastily attaching energy legislation to a defense bill. Issues of timing and appropriateness aside, some of the energy proposals that have been heralded as necessary in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11 are in fact poor energy policy and poor environmental policy. I find particularly disingenuous the argument that we need to make an immediate decision on opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Drilling in ANWR will not provide any oil in time to help fuel our forces fighting the scourge of terrorism. If we were to open ANWR to oil drilling today, it would still take up to 10 years for the oil to make it to market. Furthermore, according to a report by the US Geological Survey, there is only about a 6-month supply of economically recoverable oil in ANWR. Clearly, 6 months of oil 10 years from now won't do much to help America respond to the terrible tragedies of September 11. We can achieve greater and more immediate energy security by increasing our energy efficiency. According to one scientist who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee last year, the United States could cut reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This is a much greater benefit than the few percent improvement that drilling in ANWR would provide, and the benefits could start almost immediately--not in 10 years. I note that the United States has a tremendous record of increasing energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: following the 1979 OPEC energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in technology, 2.2 percent is easily attainable. In addition, Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Schumer and I introduced legislation earlier this year that would save consumers a million barrels of oil per day and billions of dollars by increasing CAFE standards for SUVs. That legislation would do far more to increase our energy security than would drilling in the Arctic. We should also do more to promote alternative fuels. According to an analysis prepared by the Department of Energy, if only 10 percent of the gasoline in American cars were replaced with alternative fuels, the price of oil would fall by $3 per barrel and Americans would save over $20 billion a year, in addition to greatly improving our energy security. The chair and ranking members of the Energy Committee, Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, have put a tremendous amount of effort into developing comprehensive energy proposals. Each of their proposals contain many, many excellent provisions. I would like to thank them and all members of the energy committee for their hard work. However, I must emphasize that their work is too important, and the implications for the entire Nation too significant, to be hurriedly attached to another bill without adequate time for debate. We need to adopt balanced legislation to increase our energy security, but we need to do so in a rational manner. Energy security is too important not to be addressed on its own merits by the full Senate. Furthermore, our defense needs are too important not to allow the Defense Authorization bill to go forward. Senators Levin and Warner have worked extremely hard on that bill, and have put together a bill that is critical for the defense of our Nation. I implore all of my colleagues, please, for the good of America, speed passage of the Defense Authorization bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, as our Nation mourns the loss of thousands of our citizens in the terrorist attacks on America, many of us in Washington and in Maine also grieve the passing of a very special person who devoted her professional life to public service, Mary Berry Gerwin. Mary was only 46 when she died on September 18, after a courageous 9- year battle with cancer. In her short time on Earth, however, Mary had a greater impact on public policy and on those of us who knew her than most people accomplish in lifetimes that last twice as long as hers. I will share with my colleagues a little bit about Mary's remarkable career in public service. Most recently, Mary held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. During her tenure at the Pentagon, she received the Outstanding Public Servant Award from then-Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Among Mary's duties at the Pentagon were working with service members, retirees, and their families on a variety of health care issues. She traveled extensively to the Middle East, Korea, and Bosnia, to meet firsthand with service members to discuss health care and quality-of-life issues. She also visited refugee camps in Kosovo to help improve conditions there as well. I came to know Mary when we worked closely together as staff members on the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management from 1981 to 1987. The very first day I met her, I knew Mary was a star. She was extraordinarily bright, and no one ever worked harder or longer. Her work ethic was legendary. In fact, her longtime boss, former Senator and Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, remarked of Mary that a raised eyebrow could send her back to her desk at 8 p.m. to work another 4 hours to midnight. She was also a lot of fun, with an optimistic outlook and a quick wit that helped to sustain her through her lengthy illness. Mary succeeded me as the subcommittee staff director in early 1987. She then went on to serve as staff director of the Senate Special Committee on Aging when Senator Bill Cohen became its chairman. During her years in the Senate, Mary contributed enormously to legislative accomplishments. She drafted significant bills, including the Social Security disability reform bill, landmark anti fraud and abuse legislation, nursing home, and long-term care Medicaid reforms, the Independent Counsel Act, the Ethics In Government Act amendments, and a major revision of the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act, as well as procurement and information technology reforms. Mary was particularly proud of Aging Committee hearings in 1996 that led to increased funding for the National Institutes of Health for research on diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries. Mary touched so many lives. Members of our Armed Forces and senior citizens who never had the pleasure of meeting Mary have better lives because of her work. But it is we who knew her personally who were truly pleased. Mary was kind and generous, not only to those of us who were her friend but to everyone she met or with whom she came in contact. Let me tell you one story. Every day Mary would purchase her Washington Post from an elderly man. Her husband Ed used to chuckle that Mary was the only person in Washington who would spend $5 every day buying her newspaper. Mary approached her illness with an abiding faith and remarkable courage and cheerfulness, even as she underwent excruciatingly painful treatments for her cancer. Whenever I called to check on her, she was remarkably upbeat and optimistic. She would quickly turn the conversation to what I or another friend was doing, rather than talking about the treatments she was undergoing. I am reminded of Walter Mondale's tribute to one of our greatest Senators, Hubert Humphrey, shortly after Senator Humphrey's death. He said: Hubert taught us how to live and he taught us how to die. Mary, too, taught us how to live and how to die. Mary's boss for two decades, former Secretary of Defense and Senator Bill Cohen, delivered an eloquent eulogy to Mary at her funeral mass on Sunday. I ask unanimous consent that his eulogy be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mary's wonderful family, particularly her mother, her husband Ed, and her two daughters, Katie and Kristen. Katie worked as an intern in my office during this past summer and she is so like her mother--bright, cheerful, strong, and hard working. Mary's legacy is reflected in those terrific daughters, as well as in her professional career. I am so thankful to have had the opportunity to have been her friend. Exhibit No. 1 Eulogy by William S. Cohen of Mary Gerwin, September 22, 2001 We have all been overwhelmed and immobilized by grief in the days since the terrorist attacks last week. Grief has had the power to silence us, to bring us together, to rouse us to action. As we have gathered around television sets since September 11, staring mutely at the incomprehensible carnage and horror, we may have had some acquaintance with the victims or we have simply grieved for our nation and our fellow citizens. Today is different. Today, we are truly taking note of a death in the family. A death in Mary's immediate family, of course, but also in the family of unique individuals I have been privileged to assemble and work with during years in Congress, the Pentagon, and beyond. This is a team of talented men and women who are bound together by many invisible threads, who have worked together, played together, sometimes fought together, and looked after each other for more than 25 years. Mary's death has brought us here today, and we grieve and we are angry. Angry that she was so sick for so long, angry that she left us at such a ridiculously young age. But even in our anger and our grief, we celebrate her. Everyone in this room knew Mary as a colleague, an employee, a boss, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, or a friend. I'd like to talk about the Mary I knew, the Mary all of us knew. My friendship with Mary started 20 years age. I was a freshman senator, and she was a kid from Portland who had just gotten out of law school. She came to work for me and, unbeknownst to either of us, we started an adventure together that led to writing and changing major laws in this country, led to her visiting and working with US troops in Korea, Bosnia and Saudi Arabia, led to her working with refugee camps in Kosovo, and led to a friendship as well. But it started for both of us in Maine. Mary didn't come from a well-to-do family. Neither did I. Mary lost her dad when she was just a baby, and her Mother worked at the railroad and raised four terrific kids on her own. Mary knew how real people in Maine worked and loved and struggled, and that knowledge made her very effective when she helped to write and rewrite the laws that affected their lives. Mary and I had something else in common. We both started out as practicing lawyers. But not for long. We were both drawn to the greater possibilities of public service. Mary graduated cum laude from Georgetown Law and spent a very short and uninspiring few months at a law firm, which prompted her to look for work on the Hill. It was one of the luckiest things that could have happened to me. It seemed there was nothing Mary couldn't do. She worked closely with a great team that included another remarkable young woman named Susan Collins, whose service as a United States Senator today makes us all very proud. Together, this group ran a subcommittee that oversaw how government programs are run and tried to improve them. Later, Mary ran the staff of the Senate Aging Committee as well, working to improve the lives of older Americans. Once I got to know Mary and her work habits, I used to joke with her that the Nuns must have really gotten to her in Catholic school--I had never seen anyone who would stay so late, work so hard, or be so easily made to feel guilty about leaving anything undone. A simple raised eyebrow could send her back to her desk until midnight. A truly dedicated mother, Mary understood deeply the difficult balance between being a good parent and being a professional. But instead of complaining about it, she took action--helping to create the Senate Child Care Center so that her children and others could get the highest quality child care and pre-school education. Because of Mary Gerwin and her energy and innate sense of fairness and compassion, here are some of the ways our country is different, and better: --Disabled Americans live in greater dignity, --The savings of older Americans are better protected from investment fraud, --There is less fraud and abuse in the health care system, --People who receive Medicaid and live in nursing homes are treated better, --The government spends its contracting dollars more wisely, resulting in billions of dollars saved, --More research money is spent fighting conditions such as Parkinson's Disease and spinal cord injuries. There was another effort that Mary championed, and it is called the Independent Counsel Act. Not everyone loved this law. My old boss, President Clinton, really didn't love it. But we worked hard on it because the law said, in effect, no one is above the law, even the President. Mary Gerwin kept this law alive almost single-handedly. Many people, particularly in our own party, opposed this effort. Mary fought for it anyway, and she won. When I went to the Pentagon, I asked Mary to come with me. She was the person I turned to health issues affecting our troops, and there were many such issues. She worked with me and with a deeply talented public servant, Rudy De Leon, who also became a good friend to Mary. She didn't just know the right answers--she found out from the troops what they needed. Even in times when her illness was sapping her strength, she was traveling to Korea, to Bosnia, to Saudi Arabia to talk to our forces and find out how the Department of Defense could serve them better. She came with Janet and me in 1999 for our annual holiday visit to the troops, which is a very arduous trip involving several countries in just a few days and in bad weather. But she wanted to go, and she brought great comfort to the many troops she spent time with. After I left office, Secretary Rumsfeld asked Mary to stay on, and she worked well into June before she became too weary. She loved working with the troops. In this way, she was like the father she never knew, who was a Navy recruiter and loved helping young sailors with their problems. I mention a sampling of Mary's accomplishments for a reason--to underscore the good that can be done in a life of public service. Mary's accomplishments would be extremely impressive if they were spread over a 50 year career. She had such a short time, and she did so much. Her accomplishments would also be impressive if they were all she did. But she saved her best energy for being a wife and a mother, as well as a daughter and a sister. You only have to spend a few minutes with Katie and Kristen to see what kind of mother Mary has been, as well as what kind of father Ed has been. Katie and Kristen are exemplary young women--apples who have not fallen very far from the tree. And Mary and Ed had one of the best marriages I knew of--supportive and positive and loving at all times, even the bad times. It is remarkable to reflect on Mary's degree of professional accomplishment and personal success when we consider the inescapable fact that the last ten years of her life were spent fighting an awful illness. The pain and difficulty she endured is unimaginable to most of us. Many of us would have given into despair. Mary stayed positive and productive even in the worst of times. She hated to be thought of as sick. She hated for people to cut her any slack because of her illness. It is tempting for us all to be angry and feel cheated about a life which ended so soon and had so much suffering in the last ten years. I knew Mary for 20 years, and I wish I had 20 more with her. But we know that we were lucky to know her at all. Rarely in life are we fortunate enough to appreciate the truly special people in our lives. Mary was someone you could count on. She touched all of our lives. She made us laugh, she astonished us with her bravery and devotion to God. There will never be a day that her smile, her love, and her courage will be far from our thoughts. On September 11, a great many friends and colleagues of ours at the Pentagon, and many more we didn't know in New York, passed from this world to a better place. Last Tuesday, they were joined by a very special angel. Mary, we will miss you.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I have recently been briefed on these two medical research efforts and would like to offer a couple of comments on their potential impact in combat casualty care. They are research initiatives by our research laboratories and universities across the country, which could provide a unique capability to develop new tissue products that are vitally important for the military. Recent U.S. military actions have resulted in stationing troops in harsh climates, from Kuwait to Bosnia to Saudi Arabia. Future locations and missions will require new capabilities in combat casualty care, and these capabilities would include stable blood products, organs, and wound repairing tissues that will enhance human survivability under conditions of trauma, shock, anoxia and other extreme conditions, including extreme environment. These projects aim to develop tissue with a long shelf life that are necessary for combat casualty care. Additionally, the research would serve as a large-scale source of murine models for the scientific community to utilize mouse genetics in understanding how the products of multiple genes interact to develop and maintain entire physiological systems. I would strongly urge the Department to investigate research that would permit the long-term storage of blood cells and tissues in deployed environments.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of our distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee an issue that we must consider as potential military action is taken to address our national crisis. There are many aspects to consider in taking care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are sent into harm's way. However, there is an immediate and critical area that may not seem like a high priority in these times of deployment and mobilization of our armed forces, an area that in times of war becomes absolutely necessary in preserving their well-being. I am speaking of medical technology and research as it concerns the battlefield. I have recently been made aware of two efforts that could dramatically improve the current medical challenges involved in blood and tissue preservation. These programs would aim to develop stable blood products, organs, and wound-repairing tissues that could enhance human survivability under conditions of trauma, shock, anoxia and other extreme conditions that are common in combat.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at the request of Senator Domenici, I ask unanimous consent that Pete Lyons, a fellow in Senator Domenici's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Virginia Renee Simpson, a congressional fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges throughout the debate on the national defense authorization bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This bill provides our armed forces the tools necessary to protect, serve, and defend the United States of America and our allies. Recent events underscore the critical importance of this bill: as the country mourns those lost in last week's terrorist attacks, our armed forces must stand at the ready. This bill has many laudable initiatives, including several efforts from all three of the subcommittees on which I serve: Seapower, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and Personnel. In the area of Seapower, our subcommittee was faced with the difficult task of balancing the competing priorities of: new construction of ships for our naval fleet; sustaining our current platforms and weapons systems; and investing in the weapons systems and platforms of the future. I am pleased that this bill takes important steps to ensure that our naval forces can continue to command the seas and project power ashore while sustaining a viable industrial base to support our future national security needs. The bill approves more than $9 billion in funding for such major programs as three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, one SSN-774 Virginia class attack submarine, and one T-AKE auxiliary cargo and ammunition ship. It is critical that the U.S. Navy's destroyer program sustain a viable production rate to ensure a smooth transition from the current DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer program to the future land attack destroyer program, DD-21, which will form the backbone of our future fleet. The bill further authorizes advance procurement funding for four LPD- 17 amphibious transport dock ships and the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship. Full funding of $643.5 million for the continued research and development for the DD-21 Zumwalt land attack destroyer program is also included in this bill. This is particularly important in light of the House's unfortunate decision to cut the DD-21 authorization for the coming fiscal year. DD-21 will be vital to assure and sustain access to areas of U.S. interests overseas. It will do so very efficiently, with a target crew size of less than 100 and other design innovations that result in significant life-cycle cost reductions over the current destroyer program. The U.S. security strategy to defeat adversaries that seek to deny us access to littoral regions of the world will be critically dependent on U.S. ships that are harder to target and attack, and on weapons systems that can deliver combat power ashore. The Seapower Subcommittee also allocated substantial resources to strengthen aviation assets in the areas of airlift, as well as for patrol, reconnaissance and surveillance platforms. The bill authorizes nearly $90 million in additional funding to sustain readiness for C-17 maintenance trainers and improved shipboard navigation radars, among other items. Additionally, the bill provides more than $170 million to improve the ability to meet non-traditional threats, including $96 million for P-3 modifications to increase the capability of the P-3 aircraft to support operations in littoral environments. These modifications to the P-3 aircraft will ensure that the aging P-3 aircraft can continue to respond relevant to the changing threat and operational environment. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities has spent a great deal of time this year analyzing the military's ability to meet non-traditional threats. This bill continues to improve the ability of U.S. forces to deter and defend against a very real, asymmetrical and growing terrorist threat. Tragically, we have learned just how real the threat has become. The threat is not ``emerging''; unfortunately, it's real and present. In light of the recent terrorist attacks and testimony of the military regional Commanders-in-Chief, I believe that we must do more in the areas of force protection, antiterrorism, counter-terrorism training, and research and development in order to protect U.S. forces against weapons of mass destruction, and to help them support domestic efforts to manage the deadly consequences of terrorist attacks on our homeland. The awful events of September 11th should highlight the urgency of ensuring preparedness in this arena. In this new ``war'' against terrorism, such programs are our front lines. The Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee sought to improve capabilities to meet non-traditional threats by encouraging the development of technology for the detection, identification, and measurement of weapons of mass destruction agents, investing in research initiatives that will detect biological and chemical weapons, and funding the terrorism readiness initiatives of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This bill demonstrates our commitment to reexamine and bolster our efforts to combat terrorism and to extend the Defense Department's emphasis upon force protection overseas to include better protection at home as well. One of the first hearings held by the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, for example, focused on ``lessons learned'' from the attack upon the destroyer USS Cole, which had killed 17 sailors. Tragically, we will now have many more lessons to learn. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats also has been examining the role of civil support teams in dealing with terrorist attacks and upon broader issues of how we should prepare for ``homeland defense.'' This work has been eye-opening, and the tragic events of the past few days underscore, as perhaps nothing else could, how important it is to support the Defense Department's efforts in these areas. I am pleased with the work of our Personnel Subcommittee as well. The bill we are considering fully funds the Tricare for Life, TFL, initiative authorized in the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, while also improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S. forces and families. The committee added $700 million to the budget request to improve compensation and quality of life, including additional funds to reduce service members' out-of-pocket housing costs, to increase higher education opportunities, and to provide personal gear to improve the safety and comfort of U.S. forces in the field. Effective January 1, 2002, every service member will receive a pay raise of at least 5 percent, and personnel in certain pay grades will receive targeted pay raises ranging between 6 and 10 percent. These will be the largest increases in military pay since 1982. Further, the bill supports the budget request of $17.9 billion for the Defense Health Program, which represents a significant increase in order to meet rising costs of medical care and increased benefits for military retirees. While it is our responsibility to exercise our best judgment regarding the security of our Nation, we must do so while considering the administration's current priorities, as well as the emergent needs of our sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines. In this time of constrained resources and limited budgets, every initiative needs to be carefully considered in the wake of traditional and non-traditional threats. With that said, it is my belief that we in Congress, and this administration have some very tough choices to make, not only in the areas of missile defense and the new war on terrorism, but also in developing a integrated national security strategy, force structure, and future investments critical to our armed forces. Such fundamental decisions should be made first, and we should move forward to the evaluation of where and how our force structure should be supported. While the debate continues on how to transform our armed forces, and the committee takes action to support our armed forces and the administration's priorities, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for their tireless efforts to tackle these very tough issues and produce an authorization bill that funds a number of critical priorities and provides support for the men and women of our armed forces. I wish to make a few points in response to the speech given by my distinguished colleague from Arizona earlier today on the issue of base closures. Many of us have made the argument that it makes far more sense to determine our force structure, particularly in light of the new emphasis that must be placed on homeland defense before we proceed with closing installations that may well prove to be needed later on. But it isn't just those of us serving in the Senate who support Senator Bunning's amendment who feel that way. Let me quote from an answer that our Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, gave to a question regarding base closures put to him by Senator Dorgan at a hearing before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in June. Senator Dorgan gave an excellent speech on this issue earlier. Secretary White said: I think that the cart's a little before the horse. The first thing we have to nail down is what the national military strategy is . . . in accordance with the QDR process. That's step one. Step two is sizing the force against the strategy, and that will flow out of the exercises currently ongoing. And the third step will be what's the most efficient basing for that force, and only at that stage of the game, when we try to figure out the most efficient way to base the force and to support it from a business perspective, will we get into which infrastructure is excess or not. This has got to be a strategy driven exercise. Ironically, Secretary Rumsfeld, in arguing for base closures, also makes the point that: Our future needs as to base structure are uncertain and strategy dependent. This is the wrong time. We face tremendous challenges. We should not be embarking on a whole new round of closing and downsizing base installations until we know what our needs are. And then, Mr. President, we should not be using the discredited BRAC process. My colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I have extensive experience with the BRAC process. We have found it to be unfair. We have found it to be inconsistent in its application. If the Pentagon identifies bases that are truly excess, that are not needed--and I recognize there is excess capacity--then the Pentagon should identify those bases and put it in the budget. Why should we put every community across this country that hosts a base through the uncertainty, the worry, and the expense of hiring consultants to make the case for the retention of their base? That just does not make sense. We are experiencing this right now in Maine the Pentagon's closure of a base in Winter Harbor. We wish that this Navy installation, which has been there for more than 70 years, were going to remain open, but, unfortunately, its mission has become obsolete. What the Maine congressional delegation is doing is working with the local communities, with the Park Service, and with DOD, on a transition plan so it can be effectively reused. We do not need to endure the uncertainties of a politicized BRAC system. Finally, I want to respond to the comments made by the Senator from Arizona about the need for improved housing for our troops. I could not agree with him more. I have visited our troops stationed at the DMZ in Korea. I was shocked and appalled at how bad the housing was for our brave men and women who are serving there on the front lines. We do have to do better. But that is a completely separate issue from the issue of whether now is the time to embark on base closures. Now is not the time--now is the worst possible time--to divert the energies of the civilian and military leaders of the Pentagon into an exercise of closing bases that may well prove to be needed later. Now is certainly not the time to create concern and chaos and confusion in every community that has proudly hosted a military installation and is supporting our men and women in uniform. Now is certainly not the time to embark on another round of base closures when all of our energies must be focused on the overriding goal of crushing the international network of terrorist organizations that have so harmed our Nation and its citizens. I urge support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I speak to the pending amendment, I want to commend the two leaders of our committee. I joined this committee in January, and they have worked very hard in the last week to come up with a bill that would unify this body. So I want to commend both Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their tremendous efforts in producing a bill that will help bring us together and ensure we are providing the resources and the authority for the important task before us. I praise them and thank them for their efforts. I commend the Senator from Kentucky for his amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the provisions in our bill known as the base realignment and closure, or BRAC, proposal. I opposed this proposal in committee, and I continue to oppose it today. In fact, I think the reasons for opposition are even more compelling than they were at the time of our committee markup. After the September 11 attacks on America, I question, with even more certainty, the decision to proceed with additional cuts in our base infrastructure. As the result of the first 4 BRAC rounds, 97 military bases in the United States have been or are in the process of being closed, degrading our defense readiness according to some military experts. In light of the recent terrorist attacks on our homeland, and based on the testimony provided by the Chief of Naval Operations before the Senate Armed Services Committee when Admiral Clark recently cautioned that the Navy's infrastructure is already at barebones, now is simply not the time, it is simply not in our country's best interests, to initiate yet another round of base closures. At a time when our Commander in Chief has warned of a long and sustained military operation, we should be preserving, not eroding, our facilities and infrastructure, so that they are fully available for our Armed Forces both at home and abroad. It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that these installations are not placed at risk without careful, prudent consideration of the additional military requirements, particularly with regard to homeland defense, that are evolving as a result of the recent horrific attacks on our Nation. It is also clear that our ongoing peacekeeping and humanitarian missions require a greater force structure than had been expected. Our war on terrorism will most likely require a greater one still. In short, it is difficult to conceive of a worse time for the Pentagon to divert its energies to another round of base closures. Before we legislate a defense-wide policy that will reduce the size and number of training areas critical to our force readiness, the Department of Defense needs time to complete its comprehensive plan identifying the operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support national security requirements, particularly in light of the challenge to come. Before we know what to cut, we need to know what to keep. It is that simple. I fear we are approaching the issue of excess capacity exactly backwards. As Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged in his recent letter to the committee, our future needs as to base structure are uncertain and our strategy dependent. I make it clear I understand the Secretary still wants to proceed with base closures, but his own letter says very clearly that our future needs as to base structure are uncertain. Shouldn't we determine what our infrastructure needs are before embarking on a whole new round of closing bases? Wouldn't that be the better, more logical way to proceed? Further, while those who support BRAC hope for substantial savings from base closures, the one consequence you can count on when a base is closed is the need for a significant upfront investment. A recent GAO report released in July of this year underscores how costly base closures can be and how ephemeral the savings estimates may be. The loose estimates of supposed savings, for example, exclude over $1.2 billion in costs of Federal assistance provided to affected communities. These are costs paid by the Federal Government but not out of the BRAC budget accounts. Some $10.4 billion in environmental cleanup costs were the direct result of the first four BRAC rounds. We ought to be doing a better job of environmental cleanup at our bases, whether they are open or closed. However, we can't ignore these significant costs. These are considerable costs which only continue to grow, often not counted, as costs associated with closing bases. There is another more fundamental reason I oppose the BRAC language in this bill. Simply stated, BRAC is the wrong process for identifying bases for closure. If the Pentagon believes certain bases are no longer needed, those installations should be identified and included in DOD's budget submission. There is no need to cast a cloud of uncertainty over every base in virtually every community hosting a base all across this great Nation. Senator Snowe and I can testify personally that BRAC is not the clinical, impartial process it is often made out to be. Rather, the BRAC process in the past has been highly politicized and it remains susceptible to political pressure in its current form in this bill. While I recognize the need to reduce proven excess capacity, the BRAC procedure has been unfair in the past. It has not produced the savings anticipated by past rounds of closures, and it could at a critical time result in degraded readiness for our Armed Forces. I will continue, therefore, to voice my strong opposition to another round of base closures. I will continue to work to ensure that critical assets and training capacities provided by our existing force structure and infrastructure are not lost. Now is certainly not the time to create chaos, concern, in every community that has proudly hosted a military installation. Now is certainly not the time to embark on another round of base closures, when all of the energies of our civilian and military leaders must be focused on the overriding goal of crushing the global network of terrorists intent on harming our great Nation and its citizens. I urge support for the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. The situation in Maine is of particular concern to me. Ninety-eight Customs inspectors are currently stationed in my home State. Yet, according to a Customs Service resource allocation analysis based on threat and workload assessments, Maine should have 253 inspectors, or two-and-one-half times more than are currently there. Maine has 23 land border ports of entry, some of which are manned by a single inspector at any given point in time. Our Customs and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors work long and hard to protect the integrity of our border. But they need reinforcements. I understand that the lack of Customs officials in Maine would not be ameliorated completely by this bill. But it, in conjunction with the $25 million for additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors included in the Senate-passed Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, would take a strong step in the right direction. And I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member to help ensure that Maine receives its fair share of additional inspectors.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to comment the managers of the Treasury, Postal appropriation bill, Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Campbell, for including in their bill funds to increase the number of Customs officers stationed on our northern border. I particularly commend their foresight, which was confirmed by the tragic events of last week, and the suggestion that some of the terrorists may have entered the United States through ports of entry in my home State of Maine.