Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota for his usual graciousness in allowing me to respond to the comments made by my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Let's look at the facts. My colleagues on this side of the aisle have repeatedly said that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is our top priority. We produced a very good bill from the HELP Committee on which the Presiding Officer serves so ably. We produced a bill that provides a substantial increase in Federal funding for education to help improve education and the lives of children all over this Nation. We also adopted an important, innovative, new approach, one that recognizes that Washington is not the fount of all wisdom when it comes to educational policy. We recognize that schools have different needs, that some need new computers. Others need to hire new math teachers. Still others need to concentrate on providing more programs for gifted and talented students. Schools have different needs. They want to tailor their policies to the needs of the local community. That is what our bill would do. It would give schools more flexibility in spending Federal dollars while holding them accountable for what counts; that is, results, improved student achievement. We want to get away from the Washington-knows-best approach and let local school boards, teachers, and parents make the decisions about what their children best need. Unfortunately, our efforts were derailed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who insisted on weighing down the education bill with issues completely unrelated to education. The majority leader, Senator Lott, has tried repeatedly to get a unanimous consent agreement that would allow us to return to the education bill that both sides agree is so important. Unfortunately, the latest effort was once again met with demands for unrelated, nongermane amendments that would sink our ability to produce this important legislation this year. Those are the facts. Our side stands ready to return to the ESEA bill. We believe that is an extremely important priority. We are very proud of the bill we have produced. We believe it would make a real difference in the lives of American children. We would like to go forward. Unfortunately, we have been met with obstacle after obstacle from our colleagues on Senator Kennedy's side of the aisle. That is unfortunate. But the American people deserve to know why we have been unable to complete our work in this very important arena. I yield the floor and again thank my colleague from Minnesota for his graciousness.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of my remarks Senator Enzi be recognized, and following the conclusion of Senator Enzi's remarks, Senator Kyl be recognized.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join the Presiding Officer and several of my colleagues in discussing an issue of critical importance to our national security. That issue is the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and whether we are willing to take action, at this time, to stem this dangerous trend. I rise today in enthusiastic support of the amendment offered by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, who has worked so hard to present a reasoned and reasonable response to this threat to world peace. Senator Thompson's amendment imposes sanctions on key suppliers of weapons of mass destruction. Let me start by stating that while this is not a new problem, it does represent a growing threat. The United States has long been concerned about transfers of technology by the People's Republic of China that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the past few years, however, some of our worst fears have been realized. Let's just look at China's record: In June of 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence submitted a report to Congress stating that from July through December of 1996, ``China was the most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction and technology to foreign countries.'' In July of 1998, the Rumsfeld Commission reported: ``China poses a threat to the United States as a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and enabling technologies.'' In January 1998, the bipartisan Cox report stated bluntly: ``China stole and used classified design information on the neutron bomb, and concluded that China stole design information on our most advanced nuclear weapons, including every nuclear warhead the United States currently has deployed.'' In July of 1999, yet another year goes by, but the same problem persists. The Deutch Commission concluded that ``weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to U.S. citizens and our military forces, to our allies, and to our vital interests in many regions of the world.'' Once again, in January of this year, the Director of Central Intelligence named China, Russia, and North Korea as ``key suppliers'' of such technology. And just last month, the CIA's latest report again lists China as the key supplier of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies to rogue states. We need no further proof. The record is crystal clear. The time has come to act. We should not continue to turn a blind eye to this grave threat to our national security and to world peace. The fact is, we know China is selling missile and chemical technology to Pakistan. We know China has also assisted Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Libya by transferring critical technology. In fact, the CIA's January 2000 report states that China is perhaps the most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology in the world. Let me repeat that: China is the worst proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies in the world. We all know there is no easy panacea to this problem, no single answer. Senator Thompson's amendment provides reasonable and effective responses to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missile technologies, and advanced conventional weapons. This legislation is a step in the right direction to ensure that the United States no longer tolerates China's role in continuing to be the world's No. 1 proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. This legislation has been revised to address legitimate concerns raised by the business community, our farmers, and the Administration. The amendment has been broadened to apply not only to China, but to other countries identified by the Director of Central Intelligence as other key suppliers of weapons--that list currently includes Russia and North Korea. This legislation ensures that appropriate action will finally be taken against these proliferators, that we will no longer ignore these serious transgressions, that we will no longer turn a blind eye to what is happening. This amendment is well crafted. It provides for discretionary, not mandatory, sanctions against countries that supply proliferating technologies. Frankly, I think a case could be made for mandatory sanctions. But the author of this amendment has bent over backwards to make sure it is a reasonable, well-crafted response. Another change was in the evidentiary standard. It has been raised for imposing mandatory sanctions for companies identified as proliferators to give the President more discretion. My hope is we will pass this amendment by a strong vote tomorrow, that we will send a strong signal to China and to other countries engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that we will tell them there will be consequences, there will be penalties in response to spreading weapons of mass destruction. Now is the time for us to act. Let us enact these reasonable, well- crafted changes to our foreign and national security policies. I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on this very important issue, and I also thank him for taking the chair so I could deliver my statement. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to try to move things forward, I modify my unanimous-consent request. Following the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, would be recognized; and the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, would be recognized; to be followed by Mr. Kyl, the Senator from Arizona.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Montana how much time he desires.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Enzi is speaking in favor of PNTR. I just agreed to have Senator Sarbanes precede my speaking on PNTR despite the fact that it was a far more lengthy statement, although a very well-reasoned one, and Senator Kyl has been waiting for several hours to speak. I renew my unanimous-consent request.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow from my office, Kristin Fauser, be permitted to have floor privileges during the remainder of the debate on H.R. 4444, the PNTR legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this year I joined many of my colleagues in signing a letter supporting increased funding for renewable energy. I am pleased today to see that the subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations has honored our request with an $82 million increase in renewable energy funding, raising the total from $362 million to $444 million. That this substantial 23 percent increase occurred under severe budgetary pressures makes it all the more commendable. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their efforts in producing this bill. At no time has investment in renewable energy research and development been more important. As we have seen over and over again, even a slight imbalance between supply and demand can lead to rapidly escalating energy prices. Last winter, disruptions in oil supply caused great hardship to Mainers who depend on home heating oil. Mainers are also suffering at the pumps from gasoline and diesel prices that hit their highest levels in decades. People across the nation are further suffering from more and more frequent spikes in the price of natural gas and electricity. Unless we act to diversify our energy supply, this volatility is only likely to grow worse. For example, United States currently imports slightly over half of its oil. In less than 20 years, this number is expected to grow to 70 percent. Unless we are content to live under the perpetual threat of energy disruptions from Middle East energy barons or other forces beyond our control, we must diversify our energy supply. While renewable energy will not provide the whole answer, it holds the potential to help stabilize energy prices and to provide us with an increased level of energy security. By investing in renewable energy research and development, we enhance fuel and technology diversity and help provide the United States with insulation from future energy shocks. Investments in renewable energy have many other benefits as well. These investments increase the U.S. market share of the growing domestic and international markets for energy-supply products and permit the expansion of high technology jobs within the U.S. economy. Research in biomass and biofuels helps farmers and foresters by creating valuable new uses for agricultural products. Renewable energy has important military applications and is currently used on many remote military bases. The funds contained in this bill will also lead to improvements in distributed generation, energy storage, and reliability of the electric grid. Finally, renewable are bringing extra income to many farmers and local communities across the Nation. My home State of Maine is a leader in renewable energy production and technology. In fact nearly 30 percent of our electricity comes from renewable energy generated in Maine. Central Maine Power is selling renewable energy from biomass to green markets in other states. And just next month, Endless Energy will be putting in a brand new wind turbine at a blueberry farm in Orland. This turbine was made possible in part by the renewable energy investments that I supported last year. I again thank Senators Domenici and Reid for providing the increase in renewable energy investments that I and many of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate had asked for. This is a down-payment on future energy diversity and a sound economy. red lake river flood control

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I first want to thank the managers of this bill, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, for bringing this appropriations bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion and for making this time available to us tonight. I am very pleased to join with my good friend and colleague from the State of New York, Senator Schumer, in offering this important amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As my colleague has explained, this amendment is straightforward. It would establish a Presidential commission to help us develop a comprehensive, sustainable energy policy. The time is long overdue for this Nation to have an energy policy. Unfortunately, the current administration has failed to develop one. Last year when the home heating oil crisis gripped the Northeast, the Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, was very forthright. He admitted that the Federal Government had been caught napping and said that we simply were not prepared. Due largely to OPEC's anticompetitive manipulation of our oil markets, we have been experiencing dramatic price increases that have rippled throughout the four corners of this Nation. This year consumers have paid 47 percent more for gasoline. Truckers have paid 46 percent more for diesel fuel. And Northeasterners have paid 81 percent more for home heating oil than they did just one year earlier. In my home State of Maine, this problem is reaching crisis proportions. Seventy-five percent of all Maine households use home heating oil, consuming an average of 800 gallons per year. Last year, the average Maine household spent $320 more than it did the previous year simply to heat with oil. Of course, heating with natural gas provided little relief as natural gas prices have also soared. And the outlook for this year is even worse. Meanwhile, although OPEC countries sold 5 percent less oil in 1999, their profits were up by 38 percent. Today, as a year ago, we find ourselves turning the corner toward cooler weather and another looming home heating oil price crisis. All signs indicate that this one will be even worse than last year's. Consider that crude oil closed Friday at $33 per barrel, up from $22 a year ago. Last week heating oil futures hit their highest level since October of 1990. At the same time, as my colleague has pointed out, home heating oil and natural gas inventories are down. Indeed, distillate stocks are roughly 10 million barrels lower than the administration predicted just last month. In fact, stocks of crude oil, gasoline and heating oil in the United States have not been at levels this low since the mid-1970s, when our economy was thrown into turmoil due in large measure to a volatile oil market. Compounding the problem, the demand for distillate fuel is predicted to increase significantly this winter. In short, the fast approaching winter looks bleak. And judging from the most recent comments of OPEC officials, it is clear that we cannot expect any real relief from the cartel. As my colleague has pointed out, there is no consensus in the Congress or in the administration about what approach we should take in developing a national energy policy. Policymakers differ on what can be done to provide relief to American consumers. My friend from New York and I have been advocating for some time that the administration implement a responsible plan to swap oil from our well-stocked Strategic Petroleum Reserve to satisfy market demand and provide some price relief to American consumers. Others in this Chamber advocate different approaches. But I believe we can all find common ground with the notion that, in the long term, we need to conduct a comprehensive study of our oil and natural gas industries in order to develop a strategy to stabilize fuel prices, to explore alternative energy sources, and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies. Our amendment would take an important first step in accomplishing these goals through the creation of a bipartisan energy commission. I very much appreciate the fact that the managers have been working with us on this legislation, which I hope they will accept. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, that is designed to make health insurance more affordable both for individuals and for small businesses that provide health care coverage for their employees. In the past few years, Congress has taken some major steps to expand access to affordable health coverage for all Americans. In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--also known as Kassebaum-Kennedy--was signed into law which assures that American workers and their families will not lose their health care coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or become ill. One of the first bills I sponsored on coming to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act. States have enthusiastically responded to this program, which now provides affordable health insurance coverage to over two million children nationwide, including 9,365 in Maine's expanded Medicaid and CubCare programs. Despite these efforts, the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise. At a time when unemployment is low and our nation's economy is thriving, more than 44 million Americans--including 200,000 Mainers--do not have health insurance. Clearly, we must make health insurance more available and more affordable. Most Americans under the age of 65 get their health coverage through the workplace. It is therefore a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker. According to the Health Insurance Association of America, almost seven out of ten uninsured Americans live in a family whose head of household works full-time. In my state of Maine, small business is not just a segment of the economy--it is the economy. I am, therefore, particularly concerned that uninsured, working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. Nearly half of the uninsured workers nationwide are in businesses with fewer than 25 employees. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Businesses survey of over 4,000 of its members, the cost of health insurance is the number one problem facing small businesses. And it has been since 1986. It is time for us to listen and to lend a hand to these small businesses. Small employers generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread risks of medical claims over as many employees as can large firms. As a consequence, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), only 42 percent of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance to their employees. By way of contrast, more than 95 percent of businesses with 100 or more employees offer insurance. Moreover, the smaller the business, the less likely it is to offer health insurance to its employees. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), only 27 percent of workers in firms with fewer than 10 employees received health insurance from their employers in their own name, compared with 66 percent of workers in firms with 1,000 or more employees. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often prohibitive. Simply put, the biggest obstacle to health care coverage in the United States today is cost. While American employers everywhere--from giant multinational corporations to the small corner store--are facing huge hikes in their health insurance costs, these rising costs are particularly problematic for small businesses and their employees. Many small employers are facing premium increases of 20 percent or more, causing them either to drop their health benefits or pass the additional costs on to their employees through increased deductibles, higher copays or premium hikes. This, too, is troubling and will likely add to the ranks of the uninsured since it will cause some employees-- particularly lower-wage workers who are disproportionately affected by increased costs--to drop or turn down coverage when it is offered to them. The legislation I am introducing today, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, would help small employers cope with these rising costs. My bill would provide new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It would encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and would help businesses that do offer insurance to continue coverage even in the face of rising costs. Under my proposal, employers with fewer than ten employees would receive a tax credit of 50 percent of the employer contribution to the cost of employee health insurance. Employers with ten to 25 employees would receive a 30 percent credit. Under my bill, the credit would be based on an employer's yearly qualified health insurance expenses of up to $2,000 for individual coverage and $4,000 for family coverage. The legislation I am introducing today would also make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act would provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who pay at least 50 percent of the cost of their health and long-term care insurance. Regardless of whether an individual takes the standard deduction or itemizes, he or she would be provided relief by the new above-the-line deduction. My bill also would allow self-employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual--of these, five million are uninsured. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is not just a matter of equity. It will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working Americans. My bill will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and it would also make coverage more affordable for working Americans who must purchase it on their own. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, that is designed to make health insurance more affordable both for individuals and for small businesses that provide health care coverage for their employees. In the past few years, Congress has taken some major steps to expand access to affordable health coverage for all Americans. In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--also known as Kassebaum-Kennedy--was signed into law which assures that American workers and their families will not lose their health care coverage if they change jobs, lose their jobs, or become ill. One of the first bills I sponsored on coming to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act. States have enthusiastically responded to this program, which now provides affordable health insurance coverage to over two million children nationwide, including 9,365 in Maine's expanded Medicaid and CubCare programs. Despite these efforts, the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise. At a time when unemployment is low and our nation's economy is thriving, more than 44 million Americans--including 200,000 Mainers--do not have health insurance. Clearly, we must make health insurance more available and more affordable. Most Americans under the age of 65 get their health coverage through the workplace. It is therefore a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker. According to the Health Insurance Association of America, almost seven out of ten uninsured Americans live in a family whose head of household works full-time. In my state of Maine, small business is not just a segment of the economy--it is the economy. I am, therefore, particularly concerned that uninsured, working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. Nearly half of the uninsured workers nationwide are in businesses with fewer than 25 employees. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Businesses survey of over 4,000 of its members, the cost of health insurance is the number one problem facing small businesses. And it has been since 1986. It is time for us to listen and to lend a hand to these small businesses. Small employers generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread risks of medical claims over as many employees as can large firms. As a consequence, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), only 42 percent of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance to their employees. By way of contrast, more than 95 percent of businesses with 100 or more employees offer insurance. Moreover, the smaller the business, the less likely it is to offer health insurance to its employees. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), only 27 percent of workers in firms with fewer than 10 employees received health insurance from their employers in their own name, compared with 66 percent of workers in firms with 1,000 or more employees. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often prohibitive. Simply put, the biggest obstacle to health care coverage in the United States today is cost. While American employers everywhere--from giant multinational corporations to the small corner store--are facing huge hikes in their health insurance costs, these rising costs are particularly problematic for small businesses and their employees. Many small employers are facing premium increases of 20 percent or more, causing them either to drop their health benefits or pass the additional costs on to their employees through increased deductibles, higher copays or premium hikes. This, too, is troubling and will likely add to the ranks of the uninsured since it will cause some employees-- particularly lower-wage workers who are disproportionately affected by increased costs--to drop or turn down coverage when it is offered to them. The legislation I am introducing today, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, would help small employers cope with these rising costs. My bill would provide new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It would encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and would help businesses that do offer insurance to continue coverage even in the face of rising costs. Under my proposal, employers with fewer than ten employees would receive a tax credit of 50 percent of the employer contribution to the cost of employee health insurance. Employers with ten to 25 employees would receive a 30 percent credit. Under my bill, the credit would be based on an employer's yearly qualified health insurance expenses of up to $2,000 for individual coverage and $4,000 for family coverage. The legislation I am introducing today would also make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act would provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who pay at least 50 percent of the cost of their health and long-term care insurance. Regardless of whether an individual takes the standard deduction or itemizes, he or she would be provided relief by the new above-the-line deduction. My bill also would allow self-employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual--of these, five million are uninsured. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is not just a matter of equity. It will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working Americans. My bill will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and it would also make coverage more affordable for working Americans who must purchase it on their own. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I see that the Senate majority leader has come to the floor, so I yield to him. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2924 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing legislation to stem the proliferation of web sites that distribute counterfeit identification documents and credentials over the Internet. In May, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, held hearings on a disturbing new trend--the use of the Internet to manufacture and market counterfeit identification documents and credentials. Our investigation revealed the widespread availability on the Internet of a variety of fake ID documents or computer templates that allow individuals to manufacture authentic looking IDs in the seclusion of their own homes. The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000 will strengthen current law to prevent the distribution of false identification documents over the Internet and make it easier for Federal officials to prosecute this criminal activity. The high quality of the counterfeit identification documents that can be obtained via the Internet is simply astounding. With very little difficulty, my staff was able to use Internet materials to manufacture convincing IDs that would allow me to pass as a member of our Armed Forces, as a reporter, as a student at Boston University, or as a licensed driver in Florida, Michigan, and Wyoming--to name just a few of the identities that I could assume, using these phony IDs. We found it was very easy to manufacture IDs that were indistinguishable from the real documents. For example, using the Internet, my staff created this counterfeit Connecticut driver's license, which is virtually identical to an authentic license issued by the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. Just like the real Connecticut license, this fake with my picture on it, includes a signature written over the picture--which is supposed to be a security feature. It includes an adjacent ``shadow picture,'' and it includes the bar code and the State seal for the State of Connecticut. Each of these sophisticated features was added to the license by the State of Connecticut in order to make it more difficult to counterfeit. Yet the Internet scam artists have been able to keep up with the technology, and every time a State adds another security feature it has been easily duplicated. Unfortunately, some web sites sell fake IDs complete with State seals, holograms, and bar codes to replicate a license virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Thus, technology now allows web site operators to copy authentic IDs with an extraordinary level of sophistication and then distribute and mass produce these fraudulent documents for their customers. The web sites investigated by my subcommittee offered a vast and varied product line, ranging from the driver's licenses that I already showed to military identification cards to Federal agency credentials, including those of the FBI and the CIA. Other sites offered to produce Social Security cards, birth certificates, diplomas, and press credentials. In short, one can find almost any kind of identification document that one wants on the Internet. The General Accounting Office and the FBI have both confirmed the findings of the subcommittee's investigation of this dangerous new trend. The GAO used counterfeit credentials and badges readily available for purchase via the Internet to breach the security at 19 Federal buildings and two commercial airports. GAO's success in doing so demonstrates that the Internet and computer technology allow nearly anyone to create convincing identification cards and credentials. The FBI has also focused on the potential of misuse of official identification, and just last month executive search warrants at the homes of several individuals who had been selling Federal law enforcement badges over the Internet. Obviously, this is very serious. It allows someone to use a law enforcement badge to gain access to secure areas and perhaps to commit harm. For example, the FBI is investigating a very disturbing incident where someone allegedly displayed phony FBI credentials to gain access to an individual's hotel room and then allegedly later kidnaped and murdered that individual. The Internet is a revolutionary tool of commerce and communications that benefits us all, but many of the Internet's greatest attributes also further its use for criminal purposes. While the manufacture of false IDs by criminals is certainly nothing new, the Internet allows those specializing in the sale of counterfeit IDs to reach a far broader market of potential buyers than they ever could by standing on the street corner in a shady part of town. They can sell their products with virtual anonymity through the use of e-mail services and free web hosting services and by providing false information when registering their domain names. Similarly, the Internet allows criminals to obtain fake IDs in the privacy of their own homes, substantially diminishing the risk of apprehension that attends purchasing counterfeit documents on the street. Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, there are no good data on the size of the false ID industry or the growth it has experienced as a result of the Internet, but the testimony at our hearing indicates that the Internet is increasingly becoming the source of choice for criminals to obtain false IDs. The subcommittee's investigation found that some web site operators apparently have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through the sale of phony identification documents. One web site operator told a State law enforcement official that he sold approximately 1,000 fake IDs each month and generated about $600,000 in annual sales. Identify theft is a growing problem that these Internet sites facilitate. Fake IDs, however, also facilitate a broad array of criminal conduct. We found that some Internet sites were used to obtain counterfeit identification documents for the purpose of committing other crimes, ranging from very serious offenses, such as identify theft and bank fraud, ranging to the more common problem of teenagers using phony IDs to buy alcohol. The legislation which Senator Durbin and I are introducing today is designed to address the problem of counterfeit IDs in several ways. The central features of our legislation are provisions that modernize existing law to address the widespread availability of false identification documents on the Internet. First, the legislation supplements current Federal law against false identification to modernize it for the Internet age. The primary law prohibiting the use and distribution of false identification documents was enacted in 1982. Advances in computer technology and the use of the Internet have rendered that law inadequate. This bill will clarify that the current law prohibits the sale or distribution of false identification documents through computer files and templates which our investigation found are the vehicles of choice for manufacturing false IDs in the Internet age. Second, the legislation will make it easier to prosecute those criminals who manufacture, distribute, or sell counterfeit identification documents by ending the practices of easily removable disclaimers as part of an attempt to shield the illegal conduct from prosecution through a bogus claim of novelty. What we found is that a lot of these web sites have these disclaimers, in an attempt to get around the law, saying that these can only be used for entertainment or novelty purposes. No longer will it be acceptable to provide computer templates of government-issued identification cards containing an easily removable layer saying it is not a government document. I will give an example. this is a driver's license from Oklahoma. It is a fake ID which my staff obtained via the Internet. It is enclosed in a plastic pouch that says ``Not a Government Document'' in red print across it, but it was very easily removed. All one had to do, with a snip of the scissors, was cut the pouch, and then the ID is easily removed and the disclaimer is gone. That is the kind of technique that a lot of times these web site operators use to get around the letter of the law. Under my bill, it will no longer be acceptable to sell a false identification document in this fashion. Finally, my legislation seeks to encourage more aggressive law enforcement by dedicating investigative and prosecutorial resources to this emerging problem. The bill establishes a multiagency task force that will concentrate the investigative and prosecutorial resources of several agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws that criminalize the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit identification documents. Our investigation established that Federal law enforcement officials have not devoted the necessary resources and attention to this serious problem. by prosecuting the purveyors of false identification materials, I believe that ultimately we can reduce end-use crime that often depends on the availability of counterfeit identification. For example, the convicted felon who testified at our hearings said that he would not have been able to commit bank fraud had he not been able to easily and quickly obtain high-quality fraudulent identification documents via the Internet. I am confident that if Federal law enforcement officials prosecute the most blatant violation of the law, the false ID industry on the Internet will wither in short order. By strengthening the law and by focusing our prosecutorial efforts, I believe we can curb the widespread availability of false IDs that the Internet facilitates. The Director of the U.S. Secret Service testified at our hearing that the use of such fraudulent documents and credentials almost always accompanies the serious financial crimes they investigate. Thus, my hope is that the legislation we are introducing today will produce a stronger law that will help deter and prevent criminal activity, not only in the manufacture of false IDs but in other areas as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing legislation to stem the proliferation of web sites that distribute counterfeit identification documents and credentials over the Internet. In May, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, held hearings on a disturbing new trend--the use of the Internet to manufacture and market counterfeit identification documents and credentials. Our investigation revealed the widespread availability on the Internet of a variety of fake ID documents or computer templates that allow individuals to manufacture authentic looking IDs in the seclusion of their own homes. The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000 will strengthen current law to prevent the distribution of false identification documents over the Internet and make it easier for Federal officials to prosecute this criminal activity. The high quality of the counterfeit identification documents that can be obtained via the Internet is simply astounding. With very little difficulty, my staff was able to use Internet materials to manufacture convincing IDs that would allow me to pass as a member of our Armed Forces, as a reporter, as a student at Boston University, or as a licensed driver in Florida, Michigan, and Wyoming--to name just a few of the identities that I could assume, using these phony IDs. We found it was very easy to manufacture IDs that were indistinguishable from the real documents. For example, using the Internet, my staff created this counterfeit Connecticut driver's license, which is virtually identical to an authentic license issued by the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. Just like the real Connecticut license, this fake with my picture on it, includes a signature written over the picture--which is supposed to be a security feature. It includes an adjacent ``shadow picture,'' and it includes the bar code and the State seal for the State of Connecticut. Each of these sophisticated features was added to the license by the State of Connecticut in order to make it more difficult to counterfeit. Yet the Internet scam artists have been able to keep up with the technology, and every time a State adds another security feature it has been easily duplicated. Unfortunately, some web sites sell fake IDs complete with State seals, holograms, and bar codes to replicate a license virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Thus, technology now allows web site operators to copy authentic IDs with an extraordinary level of sophistication and then distribute and mass produce these fraudulent documents for their customers. The web sites investigated by my subcommittee offered a vast and varied product line, ranging from the driver's licenses that I already showed to military identification cards to Federal agency credentials, including those of the FBI and the CIA. Other sites offered to produce Social Security cards, birth certificates, diplomas, and press credentials. In short, one can find almost any kind of identification document that one wants on the Internet. The General Accounting Office and the FBI have both confirmed the findings of the subcommittee's investigation of this dangerous new trend. The GAO used counterfeit credentials and badges readily available for purchase via the Internet to breach the security at 19 Federal buildings and two commercial airports. GAO's success in doing so demonstrates that the Internet and computer technology allow nearly anyone to create convincing identification cards and credentials. The FBI has also focused on the potential of misuse of official identification, and just last month executive search warrants at the homes of several individuals who had been selling Federal law enforcement badges over the Internet. Obviously, this is very serious. It allows someone to use a law enforcement badge to gain access to secure areas and perhaps to commit harm. For example, the FBI is investigating a very disturbing incident where someone allegedly displayed phony FBI credentials to gain access to an individual's hotel room and then allegedly later kidnaped and murdered that individual. The Internet is a revolutionary tool of commerce and communications that benefits us all, but many of the Internet's greatest attributes also further its use for criminal purposes. While the manufacture of false IDs by criminals is certainly nothing new, the Internet allows those specializing in the sale of counterfeit IDs to reach a far broader market of potential buyers than they ever could by standing on the street corner in a shady part of town. They can sell their products with virtual anonymity through the use of e-mail services and free web hosting services and by providing false information when registering their domain names. Similarly, the Internet allows criminals to obtain fake IDs in the privacy of their own homes, substantially diminishing the risk of apprehension that attends purchasing counterfeit documents on the street. Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, there are no good data on the size of the false ID industry or the growth it has experienced as a result of the Internet, but the testimony at our hearing indicates that the Internet is increasingly becoming the source of choice for criminals to obtain false IDs. The subcommittee's investigation found that some web site operators apparently have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through the sale of phony identification documents. One web site operator told a State law enforcement official that he sold approximately 1,000 fake IDs each month and generated about $600,000 in annual sales. Identify theft is a growing problem that these Internet sites facilitate. Fake IDs, however, also facilitate a broad array of criminal conduct. We found that some Internet sites were used to obtain counterfeit identification documents for the purpose of committing other crimes, ranging from very serious offenses, such as identify theft and bank fraud, ranging to the more common problem of teenagers using phony IDs to buy alcohol. The legislation which Senator Durbin and I are introducing today is designed to address the problem of counterfeit IDs in several ways. The central features of our legislation are provisions that modernize existing law to address the widespread availability of false identification documents on the Internet. First, the legislation supplements current Federal law against false identification to modernize it for the Internet age. The primary law prohibiting the use and distribution of false identification documents was enacted in 1982. Advances in computer technology and the use of the Internet have rendered that law inadequate. This bill will clarify that the current law prohibits the sale or distribution of false identification documents through computer files and templates which our investigation found are the vehicles of choice for manufacturing false IDs in the Internet age. Second, the legislation will make it easier to prosecute those criminals who manufacture, distribute, or sell counterfeit identification documents by ending the practices of easily removable disclaimers as part of an attempt to shield the illegal conduct from prosecution through a bogus claim of novelty. What we found is that a lot of these web sites have these disclaimers, in an attempt to get around the law, saying that these can only be used for entertainment or novelty purposes. No longer will it be acceptable to provide computer templates of government-issued identification cards containing an easily removable layer saying it is not a government document. I will give an example. this is a driver's license from Oklahoma. It is a fake ID which my staff obtained via the Internet. It is enclosed in a plastic pouch that says ``Not a Government Document'' in red print across it, but it was very easily removed. All one had to do, with a snip of the scissors, was cut the pouch, and then the ID is easily removed and the disclaimer is gone. That is the kind of technique that a lot of times these web site operators use to get around the letter of the law. Under my bill, it will no longer be acceptable to sell a false identification document in this fashion. Finally, my legislation seeks to encourage more aggressive law enforcement by dedicating investigative and prosecutorial resources to this emerging problem. The bill establishes a multiagency task force that will concentrate the investigative and prosecutorial resources of several agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws that criminalize the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit identification documents. Our investigation established that Federal law enforcement officials have not devoted the necessary resources and attention to this serious problem. by prosecuting the purveyors of false identification materials, I believe that ultimately we can reduce end-use crime that often depends on the availability of counterfeit identification. For example, the convicted felon who testified at our hearings said that he would not have been able to commit bank fraud had he not been able to easily and quickly obtain high-quality fraudulent identification documents via the Internet. I am confident that if Federal law enforcement officials prosecute the most blatant violation of the law, the false ID industry on the Internet will wither in short order. By strengthening the law and by focusing our prosecutorial efforts, I believe we can curb the widespread availability of false IDs that the Internet facilitates. The Director of the U.S. Secret Service testified at our hearing that the use of such fraudulent documents and credentials almost always accompanies the serious financial crimes they investigate. Thus, my hope is that the legislation we are introducing today will produce a stronger law that will help deter and prevent criminal activity, not only in the manufacture of false IDs but in other areas as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend Senator Levin in offering an amendment to provide much needed relief for apple and potato producers across America. Senator Levin and I share a deep concern for these farmers, who have endured such unexpected hardship over the past year. I am grateful for having the opportunity to work with my friend from Michigan on this critical matter. Over the past three years, America's apple growers have lost more than $760 million according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Market conditions, beyond the control of our farmers, and unfair trade practices have contributed significantly to these loses. There has been a reduction in demand for U.S. apples in much of the world because of poor economic conditions in foreign markets. The domestic demand for apples has been affected by conditions abroad as well. With dimished demand oversees, we have seen an increase in the foreign supply of apples in our domestic markets. The U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission recently found that our producers have been victimized by unfairly priced imports of Chinese apple juice concentrate. Unusual weather also has hurt our potato and apple producers. The Maine Pomological Society, a group that primarily represents apple producers in my State, reports that a summer-long drought, coupled with the heavy winds and rains of Hurricane Floyd in the fall, had a disastrous impact on the quality of apples produced in Maine last year. On average, only 49% of Maine's 1999 apple crop could be sold at the ``fancy grade'' quality. To provide my colleagues with a sense of what this means, I would note that in 1998, 78% of the apples produced in Maine were labeled as fancy grade. Maine potato farmers also found themselves victims of weather-related disasters in 1999. In Maine, some potato farmers found their fields covered in as much as 15 inches of water following the drenching that accompanied Hurricane Floyd last fall. Because many of Maine's farmers leave their crop in storage over the winter, we did not realize the full extent of the damage caused by Floyd's rains until this spring. Mr. President, potato farmers pour their hearts and souls into their fields. It is profoundly disheartening to hear from a farmer who has lost an entire crop that took many months of hard work to cultivate. The amendment Senator Levin and I offer today provides much-needed assistance to both potato and apple producers. Under our proposal, the Secretary of Agriculture would allocate $100 million in market loss assistance payments to our nation's apple producers. The market loss payments authorized by our amendment will help thousands of apple growers from Washington State to Michigan to Maine survive the losses they have endured due to conditions beyond their control. This amendment directs a modest amount of funds to producers who have received very little of the nearly $15 billion in emergency agriculture spending that we have passed this fiscal year. Our amendment also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide $15 million in quality loss payments to apple and potato producers who suffered losses as a result of a hurricane or other weather-related disaster. This assistance will be important to those farmers who were unable to produce their finest product because of adverse weather conditions. Mr. President, the provisions of our amendment are similar to language in the House-passed version of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The provisions recognize that potato and apple producers, like other farmers across the country, are subject to the vagaries of international markets and the weather. I ask my colleagues to join us in providing assistance to our apple and potato producers in their time of need. If anyone questions the emergency nature of this request, I would refer them to a news story that ran on the evening news in Maine this past Tuesday. The segment focused on a long-time apple grower from Alfred, Maine. The grower, with much regret, has come to the conclusion that after thirty-five years this will have to be his family's last crop. The dwindling profits are not enough incentive for the next generation of the family to contend with the government regulations and uncertainty that comes with running an apple orchard. I encourage my colleagues who missed this broadcast from Maine to read the story in Tuesday's New York Times about the hardships being endured by apple growers in New York who watched hail storms this spring wipe out much of their crops. This amendment and the aid it represents is certainly an emergency to these producers. Mr. President, the federal government must be a partner in our farmer's efforts to feed America and much of the world. The Levin- Collins amendment ensures that our apple and potato producers get the help they need to overcome the difficulties of the past year and continue to produce a quality product. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, and I yield the floor. amendment no. 3933 (Purpose: To provide relief for apple growers whose crops have suffered extensive crop damage as a result of fireblight) On page 2, lines 16 through 23, strike all after ``(b)'' and insert, ``Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In addition to the assistance provided under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use $60,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to apple producers, and potato producers, that suffered quality losses to the 1999 and 2000 crop of potatoes and apples, respectively, due to, or related to, a 1999 or 2000 hurricane, fireblight or other weather related disaster.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Senator Paul Coverdell was a rare and wonderful man--and a spectacular Senator. Anyone who had the good fortune to work with him left more hopeful, more committed, more convinced we could all make a difference. Much is being said about his extraordinary ability to get things done; I would like to talk about how he was able to accomplish so much. Senator Coverdell had many talents, but perhaps the secret to his success was high ability to bring people together. In times of friction, fractiousness, and pressure, he was always the one who remained focused and calm in the eye of the legislative storm. It was a common for him to hold meetings in his office where conservatives and moderates, strategists and ideologues, listened to each other, shared ideas and figured out not just ways of accomplishing diverse goals, but also what those goals really should be. And his energy and willingness to take on the most difficult task with little public recognition or thanks was legendary. Senator Coverdell was a man who listened. He listened to Senators and staff and policy experts. He listened to those he agreed with and those he didn't--and merged it all into a comprehensive, concise and workable plan. He respected all individuals with an honesty and sincerity that set the tone for working together. Most of all, and through it all, Senator Coverdell was kind and gracious in his dealings with everyone. The country, his state, and all of us who have been privileged to know him will miss him terribly. We join in praying for his family as they suffer his loss. We have all lost a very good friend.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my good friend again. I know he, in particular, appreciates the value of preserving our nation's history and its cultural heritage.

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank you for your invaluable support of efforts to commemorate the Saint Croix Island site. Last year's Interior Appropriations bill included my sense-of-the-Senate language that the National Park Service should take what steps are necessary to ensure that appropriate exhibits are completed by 2004. This year's Appropriations Committee mark includes $200,000 in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service construction budget to assist with the Downeast Heritage Center. The Center, which we will make every effort to complete in time for the 2004 celebration, will allow state and federal agencies and other partners in the project to interpret the French settlement efforts at Saint Croix Island and other historical, recreational, and cultural aspects of Downeast Maine.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the year 2004 will mark the 400th anniversary of a small French settlement on Saint Croix Island, located in the Saint Croix River, which forms the boundary between the State of Maine and Canada. The 1604 settlement was the initial site of the first permanent settlement in the New World, predating the English settlement of 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. Many view the expedition that settled on the Island as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America.

Ms. COLLINS. A major, international celebration is expected to commemorate the Saint Croix Island settlement's 400th anniversary. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Canadian Department of the Environment, Parks Canada has worked diligently to prepare for the event. I am concerned that we have not been as enterprising and now face the very real possibility of being less than fully prepared for the 2004 celebration. Indeed, the National Park Service has informed me that it requires planning money in fiscal year 2001 in order to ensure that the Downeast Heritage Center will be completed in time. I have introduced authorizing legislation, S. 2485, that would permit the National Park Service to join with other public and private entities to construct the Center. That bill has been reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I have every hope that the bill will become law this year. Mr. Chairman, as the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill goes to conference, I would ask that you do what you can to add $340,000 to the National Park Service construction budget so that it can assist this year in the planning of the Downeast Heritage Center with an eye to its completion by 2004.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. An amount of $1.2 million in Forest Legacy funding will allow the acquisition in fee of 3,600 acres immediately adjacent to Maine's Mt. Blue State Park, and will bring needed protections to Maine's scenic and popular Western Mountain region. I want to express my strong support for the project.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senior Senator for Maine is correct, Mr. Chairman. This tremendous turnover calls into question whether the traditional use of these lands for forestry and for outdoor recreational activities will continue. We are fortunate that the present owners of these valuable lands are offering an opportunity to secure their lasting protection and productivity. I, along with Senator Snowe, support these efforts through funding from the Forest Legacy Program and the Forest Service's land acquisition program and hope we can work together during this appropriations process to take advantage of the opportunity afforded us at this time.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to express the sorrow that is in my heart, and I know in the hearts of all of my colleagues and, indeed, everybody who works in the Senate, about the sad news of the unexpected ill health of our friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia. My heart and my prayers go out to him, his family, his staff, his constituents, and all of the many people who care so much about our good friend. He will be in our hearts and in our prayers. I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I wish him a speedy recovery.