Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the managers of this bill, Senators Hollings and Gregg, for focusing on a problem that simply has not received the attention it deserves in recent years. I am referring to the disturbing lack of Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the land ports of entry that line our borders with Canada and Mexico. Based on an analysis of workload and workforce needs, the INS estimates that our 104 land ports of entry are staffed at a mere 49 percent of their optimal level, leading to long lines and exhausted, overworked inspectors. The situation in my home State of Maine is even more alarming. Maine's 12 land ports of entry are staffed, on average, at 41 percent of their optimal level. This means that 71 INS inspectors must perform the work of 174 men and women. To put the problem in perspective, I point out that, last year, Maine's 71 INS border staff inspected approximately 6.75 million people who passed through our land border ports of entry in 3 million passenger vehicles, 400,000 commercial trucks, and thousands of buses and trains. Moreover, many of these inspections are far from routine. Since 1996, the Portland, ME district of the INS--which includes 14 land border points of entry in Vermont and one in New Hampshire--has confiscated over 2,500 fraudulent documents and apprehended hundreds of narcotics and alien smugglers, over 8,200 criminal aliens, and approximately 4,000 aliens who were the subject of lookouts by the INS and other agencies. Last year alone, the Portland district office apprehended 4 terrorists. These figures underscore the critical need for additional land border inspectors to protect the integrity of our borders and the safety of those who currently man them. This latter point is perhaps best illustrated by the situation at the border port of entry in Coburn Gore, Maine. Coburn Gore should be staffed by 12 INS inspectors. Instead, it has two. Together with two Customs Service inspectors, they man the port of entry 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Most of the time, Coburn Gore is manned by only one inspector. Think about that. A single inspector must not only keep traffic moving but must also decide when and whether to conduct a time-consuming secondary inspection when suspicion is raised. Not surprisingly, traffic sometimes backs up to the Canadian border. And when assistance is needed, a call must be placed to the State Police barracks in Skowhegan, the nearest sheriff's office in Farmington, the nearest Border Patrol office in Rangeley, or the nearest land border port of entry in Jackman, each of which is located at least an hour's drive away. For years, all available INS resources have been allocated to increase the number of Border Patrol agents stationed on our southern border. At the same time, the number of land border inspectors actually has decreased slightly. I am therefore very pleased that Senators Hollings and Gregg have allocated $25.4 million to hire 348 land border inspectors to, in their words, ``begin the long process of aligning manning with workload requirements.'' Eighteen of these new inspectors would be located in Maine, and would increase the number of INS inspectors stationed at land border ports of entry in my home State by 25 percent. Significantly, the bill would mean two new inspectors for Coburn Gore. On August 31, I wrote to Attorney General Ashcroft asking him to support the increase in land border inspectors including in this bill but, unfortunately, excluded from the House version. It is cruelly ironic that today, in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack the world has ever witnessed, news reports have indicated that some of the terrorists responsible may well have entered our country through one or more of Maine's understaffed land border ports of entry. The INS and Customs Service inspectors on our northern border work hard and long to protect our safety. It is disturbing to learn how often they encounter terrorists and other criminals seeking to gain entry into the United States. Yet it is comforting to know how often these criminals are apprehended before they can accomplish their goals. As skilled and as vigilant as they are, our border inspectors need more help, and that is why I commend the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from South Carolina for their work. I strongly support the provisions in this bill that will put more inspectors where they are urgently needed on our borders. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is very difficult to wrap one's mind around the terrible tragedy that our Nation has suffered. It is still harder to comprehend what must have been in the hearts and minds of people willing to commit such atrocities against their fellow human beings. It is very difficult to even find the right words to speak about the attack on America. But speaking about it is something we must do. The American people and the Government of the United States of America must speak forcefully and with crystalline clarity. The families and friends of those killed or wounded in these awful terrorist attacks must know that the prayers of every American and of millions upon millions of people around the world are with them now. The heroic firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, National Guardsmen, doctors, nurses, members of the clergy, and the citizens who are volunteering, who are even now struggling to save the lives of the surviving victims and to help grieving families, must know that our hearts and our deepest gratitude are with them in their vital work. Our Commander in Chief and all the men and women of the Armed Forces, our law enforcement community, and our intelligence agencies must know that we stand behind them, as perhaps never before in my lifetime, as they set about with grim resolution to ensure that justice is done to those responsible. And the evil people who planned and committed these atrocities--and all of those who may have aided and abetted them--must know that far from paralyzing the American people and dividing us fearfully against one another, what they have done instead is instantly to unite all of us into one people. We stand united in the solidarity of grief and commitment to our fellow citizens and utterly single minded in our determination to remain unbowed and to see justice done. In fact, this is my fifth year in the Senate, and never have I seen the Senate more united and more determined than we are now. These, then, are the messages we must send--and that we must keep sending with relentless determination. America may have lost a measure of our innocence, a degree of that special separateness that has helped us to keep our land of liberty safe from some of the storms that have long battered other peoples in an often turbulent world; we clearly are not as separate or as safe as once we thought. But no one--no one-- should doubt our resolve and our resilience. It is in moments such as these that the special character of America can and should shine through with particular brilliance. It shines through in our sacrifices in helping fellow citizens in terribly trying times. It shines through in the sacrifices of those brave and heroic passengers who were on the jet that did not make it to the intended target. It shines through in our commitment, even in adversity, to the bedrock values that make our system of government worth protecting, even as those values draw the murderous ire of twisted souls whose only answer to the discourse of liberty is a vocabulary of violence, terror, and death. As we care for survivors and comfort those who have lost loved ones, we also will set about finding those responsible. We must respond to these horrors in a way befitting our voices as free and united people. But let there be no doubt, respond we should and respond we will. As difficult as it is to find a voice to talk about the horrors we have experienced, I believe by finding our voices amid such shock, rage, and pain we reaffirm our most cherished principles as citizens of the United States of America. With God's help, we shall persevere, we shall find comfort in our grief, we shall find strength in the days ahead, and we shall hold those responsible for these attacks on America responsible for their actions. Madam President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans woke up this morning a sadder and angrier people. It is very difficult to wrap one's mind around the terrible tragedy this country suffered yesterday, and still harder to comprehend what must have been in the hearts of the people willing to commit such atrocities against their fellow human beings. It is very hard even to find the words to speak about it. But speaking about it is something that we must do. The American people and the government of the United States of America must today speak with crystalline clarity. The families and friends of those killed or wounded in these awful terrorist attacks must know that the prayers of every American, and of millions upon millions of people around the world, are with them this day. The heroic firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, National Guardsmen, doctors, nurses, and volunteering citizens who are even now struggling to find and save the lives of surviving victims must know that our hearts and deepest gratitude are with them in their vital work. Our commander-in-chief and all the men and women of our armed forces, our law enforcement community, and our intelligence agencies must know that we stand behind them as perhaps never before in my lifetime, as they set about with grim resolution to ensure that justice is done to those responsible. And the evil people who planned and committed these atrocities, and those who may have aided and abetted them, must know that far from paralyzing the American people and dividing us fearfully against each other, what they have done instantly is to unite us into one people. We awoke this morning united in the solidarity of grief and commitment to our fellow-citizens, and utterly single-minded in our determination to remain unbowed and to see justice done. These, then, are the messages that we must send today--and that we must keep sending with relentless determination in the difficult weeks and months ahead. America lost a measure of innocence yesterday, a degree of that special separateness that has helped to keep our land of liberty safe from some of the storms that have long battered other peoples in an often turbulent world. We are clearly not as separate, nor as safe, as once we thought. But no one should doubt our resolve and our resilience. It is in moments like this that the special character or our great Republic can and should shine through with particular brilliance. It shines through in our sacrifices in helping our fellow citizens in terribly trying times. It shines through in our commitment, even in adversity, to the bedrock values that make our system of government worth protecting even as these values draw the murderous ire of twisted souls whose only answer to the discourse of liberty is a vocabulary of violence, terror, and death. As we rescue survivors and comfort the bereaved, we also will set about finding those responsible. We must respond to these horrors in ways befitting our voice as a free and united people. But let there be no doubt. Respond we must, and respond we shall. As difficult as it is to find a voice to talk about the horrors we experienced yesterday morning, I believe that by finding our voice amidst such shock, rage, and pain, we reaffirm our most cherished principles. With God's help, we will persevere, find comfort in our grief, and find strength in the days ahead.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing legislation today to provide needed financial relief to rural ambulance providers. Historically, Medicare payments for ambulance services provided by freestanding ambulance providers have been based on a proportion of their reasonable charges, while payments to hospital-based providers have been based on their actual costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, however, directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a fee schedule for the payment of ambulance services using a negotiated rulemaking process. This rulemaking Committee finalized its agreement in February of 2000, and the then-Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, issued a proposed rule last September. The new fee schedule was originally scheduled to start on January 1, 2001, but its implementation has been delayed while HCFA, now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, continues to work on publishing a final rule. Payment under this new fee schedule will preclude hospital providers of ambulance services from recouping their actual costs. For the average, high-volume urban provider, this should not pose a significant problem. Ambulance services in rural areas, however, tend to have higher fixed costs and low volume, which means that they are unable to take advantage of any economies of scale. I am therefore extremely concerned that the proposed rule fails to include a meaningful adjustment for low-volume ambulance providers. I recently heard about the impact that this change will have on one of Maine's rural hospitals, Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington, ME. Logging, tourism, and recreational activities are central to the economic viability of this region, and good emergency transport is essential Franklin Memorial owns and operates five local ambulance services that cover more than 2,000 square miles of rural Maine. They serve some of the most remote areas of the State, and ambulances often have to travel more than 80 miles to reach the hospital. Moreover, these trips frequently involve backwoods and wilderness rescues which require highly trained staff. Since there are only 30,000 people in Franklin Memorial's service area, however, volume is very low. Under the current Medicare reimbursement system, Franklin Memorial has just managed to break even on its ambulance services. Under the proposed fee schedule, however, these services stand to lose up to $500,000 a year, system-wide. While the small towns served by Franklin Memorial help to subsidize this service, there is no way that they can absorb this loss. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, BIPA, did increase the mileage adjustment for rural ambulance providers driving between 17 and 50 miles by $1.25. While this is helpful, it will not begin to compensate low-volume ambulance services like Franklin Memorial Hospital adequately. Congress has required the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of costs in low-volume areas, but any GAO-recommended adjustments in the ambulance fee schedule would not be effective until 2004. The Rural Ambulance Relief Act that I am introducing today with Senator Feingold will therefore establish a hold harmless provision allowing rural ambulance providers to elect to be paid on a reasonable cost basis until the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is able to identify and adjust payments under the new ambulance fee schedule for services provided in low-volume rural areas.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing legislation today to provide needed financial relief to rural ambulance providers. Historically, Medicare payments for ambulance services provided by freestanding ambulance providers have been based on a proportion of their reasonable charges, while payments to hospital-based providers have been based on their actual costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, however, directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a fee schedule for the payment of ambulance services using a negotiated rulemaking process. This rulemaking Committee finalized its agreement in February of 2000, and the then-Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, issued a proposed rule last September. The new fee schedule was originally scheduled to start on January 1, 2001, but its implementation has been delayed while HCFA, now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, continues to work on publishing a final rule. Payment under this new fee schedule will preclude hospital providers of ambulance services from recouping their actual costs. For the average, high-volume urban provider, this should not pose a significant problem. Ambulance services in rural areas, however, tend to have higher fixed costs and low volume, which means that they are unable to take advantage of any economies of scale. I am therefore extremely concerned that the proposed rule fails to include a meaningful adjustment for low-volume ambulance providers. I recently heard about the impact that this change will have on one of Maine's rural hospitals, Franklin Memorial Hospital in Farmington, ME. Logging, tourism, and recreational activities are central to the economic viability of this region, and good emergency transport is essential Franklin Memorial owns and operates five local ambulance services that cover more than 2,000 square miles of rural Maine. They serve some of the most remote areas of the State, and ambulances often have to travel more than 80 miles to reach the hospital. Moreover, these trips frequently involve backwoods and wilderness rescues which require highly trained staff. Since there are only 30,000 people in Franklin Memorial's service area, however, volume is very low. Under the current Medicare reimbursement system, Franklin Memorial has just managed to break even on its ambulance services. Under the proposed fee schedule, however, these services stand to lose up to $500,000 a year, system-wide. While the small towns served by Franklin Memorial help to subsidize this service, there is no way that they can absorb this loss. The Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, BIPA, did increase the mileage adjustment for rural ambulance providers driving between 17 and 50 miles by $1.25. While this is helpful, it will not begin to compensate low-volume ambulance services like Franklin Memorial Hospital adequately. Congress has required the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of costs in low-volume areas, but any GAO-recommended adjustments in the ambulance fee schedule would not be effective until 2004. The Rural Ambulance Relief Act that I am introducing today with Senator Feingold will therefore establish a hold harmless provision allowing rural ambulance providers to elect to be paid on a reasonable cost basis until the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is able to identify and adjust payments under the new ambulance fee schedule for services provided in low-volume rural areas.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Safety Pilot Program Act, an important piece of legislation that addresses a significant safety problem in our State. Under current law, trucks weighing as much as 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city located. At Augusta, trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds for another 200 miles through the northern half of the State, and on to smaller roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages. Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads. Consequently, many Maine communities along the Interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's Interstate highways. The problem Maine faces because of the disparity in truck weight limits is perhaps most pronounced in our State capital. Augusta is the Maine Turnpike's northern terminus where heavy trucks that are prohibited from traveling along the northern segment of Interstate 95 enter and exit the turnpike. The high number of trucks that must traverse Augusta's local roads creates a severe hazard for those who live and work in as well as visit the city. It is estimated that the truck weight disparity sends 310 vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds through Augusta everyday. These vehicles, which are often carrying hazardous materials, must pass through the Cony Circle, one of the State's most dangerous traffic circles and the scene of 130 accidents per year. The fact that the circle is named for the twelve hundred student high school that it abuts adds to the severity of the problem. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce the highway miles and travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of State and local roads will be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most importantly, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the interstate highway system would be set at 100,000 pounds for three years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impacts of the pilot program on safety, and would receive the input of a panel that would include State officials, safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate highway system. Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and on to local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is not an attempt to roll back weight standards but rather a commonsense approach to a severe safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your willingness to address this important matter. We look forward to working with you as the appropriations process continues.

Ms. COLLINS. I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee as well, and would like to add to what my colleague from Maine has said regarding the EAS program, which is so critical in Maine. The EAS program sustains important economic, social, and quality of life benefits for the rural communities it serves. In Maine's case, Augusta, Maine, the State of Capital, would lose air service. Commercial air service in our Capital is absolutely crucial. Loss of service would undermine the region's economy and hinder the operation of the State government.

Ms. COLLINS. We would respectfully ask that you make every effort to retain the $6 million earmark in the conference on your bill with the House of Representatives, so that these funds can be used next year to cover engineering, construction, and planning costs associated with enhancing the highway system in northern Maine.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations for providing needed funding for projects of great importance to Maine. My senior colleague from our great State and I would like to engage you in a brief colloquy about one such project--the improvement of the highway system in northern Maine. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill sets aside $6 million to help us move forward extending Maine's highway system beyond the termination point of Interstate 95 in Houlton. Having been born and raised in northern Maine I can tell you first hand about the critical importance to that region's economy of improving the highway system of Aroostook County.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the MackPoint Petroleum Terminal Conveyance Act. This legislation will authorize the conveyance of a petroleum tank farm at MackPoint in Searsport, ME, from the United States Air Force, USAF, to the Maine Port Authority to promote economic development in the state of Maine. The bill would ultimately allow the transfer of a petroleum tank farm to the Maine Port Authority in the State Department of Transportation, which will provide critical support for the redevelopment strategy in the region. The Port Authority in Maine has developed a three-port strategic goal for economic development in Northern/Central Maine. This economic development remains high on my list of priorities, and this bill would bring us one step closer toward this goal. I am introducing this bill as a companion to legislation, The Loring Pipeline Reunification Act, which I introduced on the floor earlier this year. This companion legislation would convey a section of a pipeline connected to the tank farm, from the USAF to the Loring Development Authority, LDA, also to contribute to the re-development of the former Loring Air Force Base. Created by the Maine State Legislature, Loring Development Authority is responsible for promoting and marketing the development of the former base so as to attract more economic development to Northern/Central Maine. The tank farm and pipeline originally were built to supply the former Loring Air Base with fuel products critical to its mission as a support base for B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers. Prior to the base's closure in 1994, Defense Fuels would deliver fuel products by tanker to the Searsport tank farm, where the line originates, and then pump them through the line to the base. For a period following the base closure, the Maine Air National Guard continued to use the Searsport Tank Farm and the pipeline segment from Searsport to Bangor to supply their activities in Bangor. After a study conducted by the Defense Energy Support Center, a division of the Defense Logistics Agency however, the Air National Guard changed their means of transporting fuel from pipeline to truck. The Air National Guard supports the vision of re-unifying the pipeline and tank farm, as does the Maine State Department of Transportation, and Sprague Industries, the current owner of the land on which part of the tank farm sits. In consideration of the large geographical expanse of my State, with often treacherous winter conditions, and the fuel shortages that have vexed the Northeast over the past two winters, I believe that the conveyance of this tank farm and the adjoining pipeline would serve the public well. It would provide a safer means of transporting fuel and, by presenting a more efficient means of accessing fuel, manufacturing and processing plants currently considering new operations in the economically-challenged area would be better connected to the resources of the Eastern seaboard.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing legislation for the private relief of Nancy B. Wilson. Nancy's compelling case merits such action. In 1945, Al Wilson was married with two children when tragedy struck the family. His wife Edna was institutionalized following a severe mental breakdown, and Al was left with no one to care for his children. Five years later, he met Nancy Butler, who took up residence with Al and began caring for his two children, as well as her own son. The eldest child has written that Nancy ``is the person who brought me up in place of my biological mother, who was institutionalized. I think of Nancy as my real mother.'' Though Al and Nancy wished to get married, Al was prohibited from divorcing his first wife under a Massachusetts law barring divorce for reasons of insanity or institutionalization for insanity. Time passed, and although not legally married, Al and Nancy raised their family together. Edna Wilson died on April 12, 1969, and Al and Nancy were married twenty days later. Tragically, just seven months after their wedding, Al died of cancer. Though only married for those seven months, Al and Nancy had lived together for 19 years. When Nancy turned 64 she applied to the Social Security Administration for survivor's insurance benefits. She was told that a couple must be married for 9 months for the spouse to be eligible to collect survivor benefits, and that her legal marriage failed to meet that threshold. Nancy has since exhausted the administrative appeals process to no avail. The private relief bill we are introducing will simply allow Nancy to receive widow's benefits from her husband's earnings. Though Al and Nancy were legally prevented from being married for all but seven months of their years together, they were, for all practical purposes, married for 19 years. She raised his children, allowing him to work and accumulate a Social Security benefit. These unique circumstances illustrate why Congress must enact private relief legislation from time to time. Certainly, Nancy's unique situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act, and it is a situation that will not be repeated due to a change in Massachusetts law repealing the legal hurdle that prevented Al and Nancy from being married in the first place. Mrs. Wilson's case is truly compelling, and merits this corrective action by Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing legislation for the private relief of Nancy B. Wilson. Nancy's compelling case merits such action. In 1945, Al Wilson was married with two children when tragedy struck the family. His wife Edna was institutionalized following a severe mental breakdown, and Al was left with no one to care for his children. Five years later, he met Nancy Butler, who took up residence with Al and began caring for his two children, as well as her own son. The eldest child has written that Nancy ``is the person who brought me up in place of my biological mother, who was institutionalized. I think of Nancy as my real mother.'' Though Al and Nancy wished to get married, Al was prohibited from divorcing his first wife under a Massachusetts law barring divorce for reasons of insanity or institutionalization for insanity. Time passed, and although not legally married, Al and Nancy raised their family together. Edna Wilson died on April 12, 1969, and Al and Nancy were married twenty days later. Tragically, just seven months after their wedding, Al died of cancer. Though only married for those seven months, Al and Nancy had lived together for 19 years. When Nancy turned 64 she applied to the Social Security Administration for survivor's insurance benefits. She was told that a couple must be married for 9 months for the spouse to be eligible to collect survivor benefits, and that her legal marriage failed to meet that threshold. Nancy has since exhausted the administrative appeals process to no avail. The private relief bill we are introducing will simply allow Nancy to receive widow's benefits from her husband's earnings. Though Al and Nancy were legally prevented from being married for all but seven months of their years together, they were, for all practical purposes, married for 19 years. She raised his children, allowing him to work and accumulate a Social Security benefit. These unique circumstances illustrate why Congress must enact private relief legislation from time to time. Certainly, Nancy's unique situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act, and it is a situation that will not be repeated due to a change in Massachusetts law repealing the legal hurdle that prevented Al and Nancy from being married in the first place. Mrs. Wilson's case is truly compelling, and merits this corrective action by Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Dr. John Graham to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis at the Office of Management and the Budget. Dr. Graham has been a leader in the nonpartisan application of analytical tools to regulations in order to ensure that such rules really do what policymakers intend and that they represent the most effective use of our Government's limited resources. As a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and founder of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Dr. Graham has devoted his life to seeing that regulations are well crafted and effective--and that they help ensure that our world is truly a safer and cleaner place. The alleged ``conflicts of interest'' argued by some of Dr. Graham's opponents are clearly baseless. The Harvard Center has some of the strictest conflict of interest rules in academia, and Dr. Graham has complied fully with them. It is absurd to suggest that the bare fact of corporate research sponsorship creates a conflict. By that standard, most of the studies produced in America's universities and colleges are worthless, and few academics can ever again be found suitable for public office. Dr. Graham's critics miss their mark. I have had the opportunity to receive input from many knowledgeable sources about Dr. Graham's nomination. One of these is Maine State Toxicologist Andrew Smith. Dr. Smith studied with Dr. Graham at Harvard, and subsequently served as a staff scientist at an organization opposed to the Graham nomination. He has told us, however, that Dr. Graham approaches regulatory analysis with an open mind and is ``by no means an apologist for anti-regulation.'' Even a quick glance at Dr. Graham's record bears this out. Like other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I do not need to rely solely on second-hand information about Dr. Graham. I myself was able to work with Dr. Graham on regulatory reform legislation that had strong bi-partisan support. My personal experience in working with him confirms that what his supporters say is true: he has the experience, integrity, and intelligence to be an excellent Administrator the Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis has ever had. Mr. President, the Senate should vote to confirm John Graham.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my colleagues from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy, in introducing legislation to ensure that States like Maine and Vermont, which have taken the initiative in developing innovative programs to make prescription drugs more affordable for their citizens, can proceed with these efforts. The last 20 years have witnessed dramatic pharmaceutical breakthroughs that have helped reduce deaths and disability from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other diseases. As a consequence, millions of people around the world are leading longer, healthier, and more productive lives. These new medical miracles, however, often come with hefty price tags, and many people--particularly lower Americans without prescription drug coverage--are simply priced our of the market. As so often happens, the States have been the laboratories for reform in this area and have come up with some creative ways to address this problem. In January of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services granted Maine a waiver under the Medicaid program through which States can offer drug discounts of up to 25 percent for individuals with incomes up to three times the Federal poverty level. Our new Healthy Maine Prescriptions Program includes both this new discount prescription drug benefit and a separate benefit, financed entirely with State funds, that offers discounts of up to 80 percent for low-income elderly and the disabled. Maine began providing benefits under the Healthy Maine Prescription Program on June 1st of this year, and by June 26th the Department of Human Services had enrolled 50,460 individuals into the program. Ultimately, it is estimated that 225,000 Mainers qualify for the program. Unfortunately, however, this important new program has run into a stumbling block. Last month, in a case brought by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a three-judge appeals panel ruled that a similar program developed by Vermont ``lacked the authority to offer the same prescription rebates offered under federal Medicaid insurance'' because Congress ``imposed rebate requirements to reduce the cost of Medicaid.'' The pharmaceutical trade group has subsequently sued the Department of Health and Human Services to block the Maine waiver, and the State of Maine has become a party to that case. The Maine program is different enough from Vermont's to provide a different result in court. However, we believe that innovative programs like these, which meet such a clear human need, should be able to proceed without having to fight endless legal battles. That is why we are introducing legislation today to give the Department of Health and Human Services clear authority to grant States these kinds of waivers, which will allow them to pursue innovative uses of Medicaid, such as the Health Maine Prescription program. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson made creative use of these kinds of Medicaid waivers when he was Governor of Wisconsin. We believe that he should be able to continue to do so in his new role as Secretary without the chilling effect brought by lawsuits like PhRMA's. The legislation we are introducing today will allow States like Maine to proceed with the innovative programs they have developed to meet the prescription drug needs of their citizens, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my colleagues from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy, in introducing legislation to ensure that States like Maine and Vermont, which have taken the initiative in developing innovative programs to make prescription drugs more affordable for their citizens, can proceed with these efforts. The last 20 years have witnessed dramatic pharmaceutical breakthroughs that have helped reduce deaths and disability from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other diseases. As a consequence, millions of people around the world are leading longer, healthier, and more productive lives. These new medical miracles, however, often come with hefty price tags, and many people--particularly lower Americans without prescription drug coverage--are simply priced our of the market. As so often happens, the States have been the laboratories for reform in this area and have come up with some creative ways to address this problem. In January of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services granted Maine a waiver under the Medicaid program through which States can offer drug discounts of up to 25 percent for individuals with incomes up to three times the Federal poverty level. Our new Healthy Maine Prescriptions Program includes both this new discount prescription drug benefit and a separate benefit, financed entirely with State funds, that offers discounts of up to 80 percent for low-income elderly and the disabled. Maine began providing benefits under the Healthy Maine Prescription Program on June 1st of this year, and by June 26th the Department of Human Services had enrolled 50,460 individuals into the program. Ultimately, it is estimated that 225,000 Mainers qualify for the program. Unfortunately, however, this important new program has run into a stumbling block. Last month, in a case brought by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a three-judge appeals panel ruled that a similar program developed by Vermont ``lacked the authority to offer the same prescription rebates offered under federal Medicaid insurance'' because Congress ``imposed rebate requirements to reduce the cost of Medicaid.'' The pharmaceutical trade group has subsequently sued the Department of Health and Human Services to block the Maine waiver, and the State of Maine has become a party to that case. The Maine program is different enough from Vermont's to provide a different result in court. However, we believe that innovative programs like these, which meet such a clear human need, should be able to proceed without having to fight endless legal battles. That is why we are introducing legislation today to give the Department of Health and Human Services clear authority to grant States these kinds of waivers, which will allow them to pursue innovative uses of Medicaid, such as the Health Maine Prescription program. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson made creative use of these kinds of Medicaid waivers when he was Governor of Wisconsin. We believe that he should be able to continue to do so in his new role as Secretary without the chilling effect brought by lawsuits like PhRMA's. The legislation we are introducing today will allow States like Maine to proceed with the innovative programs they have developed to meet the prescription drug needs of their citizens, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill for working with me to provide Forest Legacy funding for an important conservation project in the western mountain region of Maine. In drafting the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, the managers have demonstrated, once again, their commitment to promoting conservation. I am particularly pleased that the bill funds Forest Legacy at $65 million--the most that has ever been allocated for this important and growing program--and I am grateful for the support Chairman Byrd and Senator Burns have given to projects in my Sate this year and in years past. Neither the Interior appropriations bill that passed in the house nor the Senate bill voted out of committee included funding for the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue conservation project in the western mountain region of Maine. Because of the importance of this project to my State, I proposed an amendment to the bill to dedicate Forest Legacy fund to the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue initiative. Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns have graciously agreed to accept a modified version of my amendment, which will earmark $1 million for the project. The western mountain region of my State is a beautiful area that has long been valued for recreation, natural resources, scenic values and productive forest lands that fuel Maine's forest product industries. These traditional uses, which would be protected in perpetuity by this conservation project, are of tremendous value to the local communities and the region's economy. Recent changes in land ownership and land use has led to local concern that the character of the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue area will be permanently altered. This has prompted the State, local businesses, and conservation groups to promote a long-term conservation vision for the region that will prevent this forested landscape from being converted as a result of development pressures. Making this conservation vision a reality entails the acquisition of 31,240 acres around Mt. Blue State Park and along Tumbledown Mountain through fee and easement purchases. Funding the Tumbledown/Mt. Blue Conservation project will enable the State to protect critical properties adjacent to the park and some of Maine's most scenic areas--including Tumbledown Mountain, Jackson Mountain, Blueberry Mountain, and trailheads leading to these peaks. I would also proudly point out to my colleagues that Mt. Blue State Park is one of Maine's most popular recreation spots and was recently voted by Outdoor magazine as one of the ten best family vacation areas in the country. The area contains rugged summits, alpine ridges, and wetlands, as well as habitat for the federally listed bald eagle and one of Maine's only successful peregrine falcon nesting terrorities. I am pleased to say that several landowners within the project area are ready now to put their resource lands into a conservation plan that will permanently protect and allow public access to recreation lands, scenic areas, and trailheads leading up Tumbledown, while providing for sustainable harvesting on the more productive and less environmentally sensitive forested areas. This is a locally driven win-win approach to resolving the various concerns that arise out of changes in the region. I applaud the many individuals and groups that have invested time in bringing this project about. It is heartening to know how deeply they care about their community, and I appreciate having this opportunity to determine my support for their efforts. Last year, because of the generous funding level the Interior Subcommittee was able to provide the Forest Legacy Program, $1.17 million was allocated to the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain project for the first phase of acquisition. This year, to complete the project another $4 million is needed. I am concerned that unless we make funding progress in fiscal year 2002 with the willing sellers now in place, Maine will lose a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect a truly wonderful resource. I want to thank very much the Senators from West Virginia and Montana for their willingness to work with me and Senator Snowe on this critical important project.

Ms. COLLINS. I also thank the Senators from West Virginia and Montana, and I look forward to continuing to work with them and the senior Senator from Maine to ensure that resources are available to assist in Atlantic salmon recovery efforts. funding for the urban parks and recreation recovery fund

Ms. COLLINS. In reporting its bill, the subcommittee originally provided $500,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic salmon grant program. It is my understanding that, in increasing funding for the program to $1.1 million, the subcommittee continues to meet the administration's request for $597,000 in funding for Atlantic salmon recovery efforts through the Fish and Wildlife Management Account.

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my colleagues from West Virginia and Montana for the support they have provided in their bill for Atlantic salmon conservation and restoration efforts in our State. I appreciate their fully funding the administration's request for $597,000 in the Fish and Wildlife Management Account as well as their willingness to make $1.1 million available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to carry out a competitively awarded grant program to fund on-the-ground recovery efforts for Maine's Atlantic salmon.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lubec Safe Harbor Act of 2001. Small communities up and down the coast of Maine literally depend upon the sea for their survival. From the rich fishing grounds that supply Maine's great fishing industry to the beautiful coastlines that draw tourist by both land and water, the sea provides Maine's coastal communities with their livelihoods. But while the sea provides life and income to Maine's coastal communities, it can also take back what it gives. One small community in Maine that has been particularly hard hit by the sea's fury is Lubec. In 1997, a winter storm took the lives of two Lubec fishermen. Earlier this year, storms destabilized the existing wave attenuation system in Lubec and consequently caused extensive damage to the Lubec marina. The destruction has been very difficult for this small town, whose existence, like many coastal Maine communities, is largely dependent on fishing and tourists who arrive by boat. Without the attenuator, the marina, the pier, and the harbor will cease to function effectively. Without a harbor, Lubec can neither support its fishing industry nor provide landing capacity for tour boats. Without a safe berth for their boats, the lives of Lubec's fishermen are further at risk. Today, I am introducing legislation that directs the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a wave attenuation system for the Town of Lubec. For the sake of the safety of the fishermen of Lubec and the well being of the community, this legislation directs the Army Corps to begin work immediately. My legislation authorizes $2.2 million dollars for the Army Corps to complete this project. I call upon my colleagues to recognize the urgency of this situation. The longer Lubec goes without a safe harbor, the greater the risk to the lives of Lubec's fishermen, and the greater the threat to the economic well-being of this coastal community. I ask my colleagues to help me pass this legislation as soon as possible. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I know she will also work very hard on behalf of the people of Lubec to see this legislation enacted.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lubec Safe Harbor Act of 2001. Small communities up and down the coast of Maine literally depend upon the sea for their survival. From the rich fishing grounds that supply Maine's great fishing industry to the beautiful coastlines that draw tourist by both land and water, the sea provides Maine's coastal communities with their livelihoods. But while the sea provides life and income to Maine's coastal communities, it can also take back what it gives. One small community in Maine that has been particularly hard hit by the sea's fury is Lubec. In 1997, a winter storm took the lives of two Lubec fishermen. Earlier this year, storms destabilized the existing wave attenuation system in Lubec and consequently caused extensive damage to the Lubec marina. The destruction has been very difficult for this small town, whose existence, like many coastal Maine communities, is largely dependent on fishing and tourists who arrive by boat. Without the attenuator, the marina, the pier, and the harbor will cease to function effectively. Without a harbor, Lubec can neither support its fishing industry nor provide landing capacity for tour boats. Without a safe berth for their boats, the lives of Lubec's fishermen are further at risk. Today, I am introducing legislation that directs the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a wave attenuation system for the Town of Lubec. For the sake of the safety of the fishermen of Lubec and the well being of the community, this legislation directs the Army Corps to begin work immediately. My legislation authorizes $2.2 million dollars for the Army Corps to complete this project. I call upon my colleagues to recognize the urgency of this situation. The longer Lubec goes without a safe harbor, the greater the risk to the lives of Lubec's fishermen, and the greater the threat to the economic well-being of this coastal community. I ask my colleagues to help me pass this legislation as soon as possible. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I know she will also work very hard on behalf of the people of Lubec to see this legislation enacted.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues today to introduce the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act. Our legislation reauthorizes the Northeast Interstate Diary Compact and allows other regions of the country to form compacts as well. In doing so, our bill extends to additional consumers and producers the benefits we enjoy in the Northeast. The Northeast Dairy Compact has proven successful in balancing the interests of processors, retailers, consumers and dairy farmers by maintaining milk price stability. Last year, 458 dairy farmers in Maine received payments under the compact totaling $4.8 million. The payments averaged approximately $10,500 per farmer, or enough to help farmers maintain viable operations, sustain rural communities, and ensure a reliable supply of wholesome dairy products for consumers. The Northeast Dairy Compact is an innovative approach to promoting stability in the New England dairy industry. The Compact provides for a commission, comprised of delegates from each State, which is granted the authority to set a minimum farm price for Class I (fluid) milk. The difference between the compact price and the Federal milk order price, or the ``over-order obligation,'' is paid to the commission by the processors. The commission then redistributes these funds to compact producers based on the volume of milk sold by the farmer within the region. The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact in promoting the viability of dairy farming and sustaining rural communities in New England has not gone unnoticed. Nineteen additional State legislatures have overwhelmingly passed compact legislation. Our legislation recognizes this strong support for compacts on the state level and provides Congressional consent for these States to join the Northeast compact or form compacts of their own. For all that the Compact accomplishes for farmers in the Northeast, one might think that it puts farmers from other parts of the country at a competitive disadvantage. However, this is not the case. The Compact Commission has instituted safeguards, as required by the authorizing legislation, that prevents the overproduction of milk. Incentive payments are provided to farmers who do not increase production and have actually led to a decrease of 0.6 percent in the amount of milk produced in the region. Consequently, we can be sure that surplus milk from the Northeast is not impacting milk markets in other regions of the country. It is important to note that our legislation includes the overproduction protections included in the original Dairy Compact legislation. The Northeast Dairy Compact is set to expire on September 30, 2001. While the saying goes that all good things must come to an end, I do not believe that ought to be the case with the Compact. Dairy farmers in my State agree and have written, e-mailed, and called to express to me their hope that Congress will extend the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I have appreciated hearing just how important the Compact is to my constituents, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that the Diary Consumers and Producers Protection Act is enacted.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues today to introduce the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act. Our legislation reauthorizes the Northeast Interstate Diary Compact and allows other regions of the country to form compacts as well. In doing so, our bill extends to additional consumers and producers the benefits we enjoy in the Northeast. The Northeast Dairy Compact has proven successful in balancing the interests of processors, retailers, consumers and dairy farmers by maintaining milk price stability. Last year, 458 dairy farmers in Maine received payments under the compact totaling $4.8 million. The payments averaged approximately $10,500 per farmer, or enough to help farmers maintain viable operations, sustain rural communities, and ensure a reliable supply of wholesome dairy products for consumers. The Northeast Dairy Compact is an innovative approach to promoting stability in the New England dairy industry. The Compact provides for a commission, comprised of delegates from each State, which is granted the authority to set a minimum farm price for Class I (fluid) milk. The difference between the compact price and the Federal milk order price, or the ``over-order obligation,'' is paid to the commission by the processors. The commission then redistributes these funds to compact producers based on the volume of milk sold by the farmer within the region. The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact in promoting the viability of dairy farming and sustaining rural communities in New England has not gone unnoticed. Nineteen additional State legislatures have overwhelmingly passed compact legislation. Our legislation recognizes this strong support for compacts on the state level and provides Congressional consent for these States to join the Northeast compact or form compacts of their own. For all that the Compact accomplishes for farmers in the Northeast, one might think that it puts farmers from other parts of the country at a competitive disadvantage. However, this is not the case. The Compact Commission has instituted safeguards, as required by the authorizing legislation, that prevents the overproduction of milk. Incentive payments are provided to farmers who do not increase production and have actually led to a decrease of 0.6 percent in the amount of milk produced in the region. Consequently, we can be sure that surplus milk from the Northeast is not impacting milk markets in other regions of the country. It is important to note that our legislation includes the overproduction protections included in the original Dairy Compact legislation. The Northeast Dairy Compact is set to expire on September 30, 2001. While the saying goes that all good things must come to an end, I do not believe that ought to be the case with the Compact. Dairy farmers in my State agree and have written, e-mailed, and called to express to me their hope that Congress will extend the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I have appreciated hearing just how important the Compact is to my constituents, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see that the Diary Consumers and Producers Protection Act is enacted.