Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I rise in support of No. 555 on the Executive Calendar, the nomination of Kermit Lipez, of Maine, to the first circuit. Mr. President, it is an honor and a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the nomination of Justice Kermit Lipez to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Having spent the past 12 years as a member of the Maine judiciary, Justice Lipez is a highly respected jurist. With experience at both the trial and appellate court levels, it is fair to say that he has been tested for the position for which he has now been nominated and that he has passed that test with flying colors. Justice Lipez is universally praised in Maine for his judicial temperament, his sense of fairness, and his intellectual capabilities. His demeanor is consistently that of a gentleman, treating witnesses, jurors, attorneys, and spectators with great respect, and ensuring that others follow his example. He makes the courtroom a far less intimidating place for the average person. Justice Lipez's reputation for impartiality is reflected in the high regard in which he is held by all segments of the bar. Indeed, people who agree on little else agree on his sense of fairness. He was appointed to the Maine Superior Court by a Democratic Governor, he was appointed to the Maine Supreme Court by a Republican Governor, and he was recently praised by an Independent Governor. If public trust in our court system hinges on the belief that the courtroom is a place where everyone can expect equal treatment, no one in Maine has done more to promote that perception than Justice Lipez. The nominee is also a man who combines great intellectual acumen with considerable common sense. He has that rare ability to deal with the most cerebral of issues while keeping his feet planted firmly on the ground. Despite the talent he possesses and the respect he commands, he is a person of humility, an essential trait for someone empowered to sit in judgment of others. Mr. President, Kermit Lipez's dedication to his profession is beyond question. As a judge's son, he came to the bench with considerable knowledge of the judicial function. Yet, shortly after his appointment to the State Superior Court, he took the unusual step of obtaining a master's degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia School of Law. Justice Lipez understands not only the powers of a judge but also the limits on those powers. To use his own words, courts exist to resolve ``particularized disputes. They do not decide the wisdom of laws. . . . [They] squander their resources and their authority when they try to manage problems or impose solutions beyond their competence and their proper role.'' Mr. President, Justice Lipez has excelled in everything he has undertaken--whether as a legislative aide to former Senator Muskie, a private practitioner, a trial judge, or a Justice on Maine's Supreme Judicial Court--and I am confident that he will excel as a member of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Snowe has been a very strong advocate for Justice Kermit Lipez. It was, in fact, Senator Snowe's husband who appointed Justice Lipez to the court in Maine. I am delighted to be here tonight to speak on behalf of this nomination.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 526, 535, 536, 537, 555, 556, 557, 563, 564, and 565.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has received from the House H.R. 2400 regarding the highway legislation. Pursuant to the consent agreement of March 12, 1998, I now ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to appoint the following conferees, which I send to the desk.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from the State of Maine, Senator Snowe, in urging my colleagues to enact H.R. 629, legislation that would ratify the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, also known as the Texas Compact. In entering into an agreement for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, the States of Maine, Texas, and Vermont followed the direction established by the Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. That legislation contemplated that states would form agreements of this nature for the disposal of low-level waste, and thus, by ratifying the compact, Congress will be completing a process that it set in motion. Mr. President, since 1985 Congress has ratified nine compacts involving 41 states. Put differently, 82 of the 100 members of this body live in states with compacts that have been ratified by the Senate, and with the approval of the Texas Compact, that number will rise to 88. In short, what Maine, Texas, and Vermont are seeking today has already been routinely granted to the vast majority of the states. While the disposal of radioactive waste is bound to generate controversy, this agreement has been overwhelmingly approved by the Legislatures of the three compacting states, signed by their governors, and in the case of Maine, endorsed by the voters in a referendum. This is consistent with the congressional determination that the states bear responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and that in the interest of limiting the number of disposal sites, they work together to carry out this responsibility. Indeed, ratification by Congress is necessitated only because state-imposed limitations on the importation of waste would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause. Mr. President, a member of this body has criticized the proposed disposal site to be established pursuant to this compact. Apart from the fact that the location of the site is a matter for the states to determine, that criticism is unsupported by the facts. In the selection of the proposed site in Hudspeth County, Texas, there was extensive public involvement, as well as thorough environmental and technical reviews. Hudspeth County was found to have the two critical characteristics for a disposal site, namely, very little rainfall and very low population density. Indeed, the county is the size of the State of Connecticut and has a population of only 2800 people. While some may wish to use this legislation to pursue a larger ideological agenda, it does not square with the facts. The choice of Hudspeth County had nothing to do with who lives there; it had everything to do with the fact that very few people live there. Mr. President, this body has been presented with nine low-level radioactive waste compacts. It has ratified each one without change. In keeping with congressionally established policy for the disposal of low-level waste, Maine, Texas, and Vermont are seeking the same treatment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998, a companion bill to legislation pending in the House of Representatives. This legislation has five components. First, it requires the Office of Management and Budget to publish annually in the Federal Register and on the Internet all of the Federal paperwork requirements imposed on small business. This will not only serve as a valuable tool for those who must comply with these mandates, but it will also make it far easier for policy makers to monitor, and I would hope check, the growth in the paperwork burden. Second, under the bill, each agency will have to establish one point of contact to act as a liaison with small businesses on paperwork requirements. In an era when serving the customer has become recognized by the private sector as critical, this is a modest step to ask of our government. Third, the legislation provides for the suspension of civil fines imposed on small enterprises for first-time paperwork violations, except under certain circumstances, such as when the violation causes serious harm to the public or presents an imminent danger to the public health or safety. In dealing with America's entrepreneurs, we need to move away from a culture that seems to place a higher priority on imposing punishment than on facilitating compliance. Fourth, in addition to meeting the mandates of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies will have to make further efforts to reduce the burden on enterprises with fewer than 25 employees. There must be some measure of proportionality between the size of a business and its costs of complying with government regulation. Fifth, a task force will be established to examine the feasibility of requiring agencies to consolidate their paperwork mandates in a manner that will allow small businesses to satisfy those mandates through a single filing, in a single format, and on the same date. By reducing the amount of time currently devoted to these tasks, our companies will have more to spend on the activities for which they were formed. Mr. President, all too often the relationship between the owners of small businesses and government is an adversial one. That benefits no one--not the owners of these enterprises, not the many Americans they employ, not the government they help to support, and not the public at large. The problem often is not with the goals which underlie our regulations, but rather in how we seek to achieve those goals. We should not forget that we are dealing with Americans who make a great contribution to the prosperity of our nation. In seeking to meet our regulatory objectives, we should be reaching out to these entrepreneurs with a helping hand and not a heavy hand. That, Mr. President, is the purpose of this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998, a companion bill to legislation pending in the House of Representatives. This legislation has five components. First, it requires the Office of Management and Budget to publish annually in the Federal Register and on the Internet all of the Federal paperwork requirements imposed on small business. This will not only serve as a valuable tool for those who must comply with these mandates, but it will also make it far easier for policy makers to monitor, and I would hope check, the growth in the paperwork burden. Second, under the bill, each agency will have to establish one point of contact to act as a liaison with small businesses on paperwork requirements. In an era when serving the customer has become recognized by the private sector as critical, this is a modest step to ask of our government. Third, the legislation provides for the suspension of civil fines imposed on small enterprises for first-time paperwork violations, except under certain circumstances, such as when the violation causes serious harm to the public or presents an imminent danger to the public health or safety. In dealing with America's entrepreneurs, we need to move away from a culture that seems to place a higher priority on imposing punishment than on facilitating compliance. Fourth, in addition to meeting the mandates of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies will have to make further efforts to reduce the burden on enterprises with fewer than 25 employees. There must be some measure of proportionality between the size of a business and its costs of complying with government regulation. Fifth, a task force will be established to examine the feasibility of requiring agencies to consolidate their paperwork mandates in a manner that will allow small businesses to satisfy those mandates through a single filing, in a single format, and on the same date. By reducing the amount of time currently devoted to these tasks, our companies will have more to spend on the activities for which they were formed. Mr. President, all too often the relationship between the owners of small businesses and government is an adversial one. That benefits no one--not the owners of these enterprises, not the many Americans they employ, not the government they help to support, and not the public at large. The problem often is not with the goals which underlie our regulations, but rather in how we seek to achieve those goals. We should not forget that we are dealing with Americans who make a great contribution to the prosperity of our nation. In seeking to meet our regulatory objectives, we should be reaching out to these entrepreneurs with a helping hand and not a heavy hand. That, Mr. President, is the purpose of this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to be joining Maine's senior Senator and a number of my other colleagues in sponsoring an amendment to the FY 98 Defense/Disaster Supplemental Appropriations bill that will provide $260 million in additional funding for HUD's Community Development Block Grant program. This money is urgently needed to assist the people of my State recover from the worst natural disaster in Maine history. I refer, of course, to the unprecedented Ice Storm that began, innocently enough, as a light rain on the morning of January 7, 1998 and ended four days later with our State encased in as much as 10 inches of solid ice. The additional CDBG funding will help not only Maine, but New York and Vermont as well, rebuild the electric infrastructure of our three states. I want to pay a special thanks to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, and to all of the Committee members for recognizing the harm caused by the Ice Storm and for providing a mechanism whereby we can secure sorely needed aid. Their cooperation is greatly appreciated by the people of Maine. Mr. President, the Ice Storm of 1998 was unlike anything Maine had ever seen. Having grown up in the most northern part of the State, I know something about ice and snow. But this was less like a storm and more like a carefully targeted and highly effective attack on our electric transmission and distribution system. The damage to that system in Maine alone was $81 million, a formidable sum for the ratepayers of a small state. Mr. President, there is an erroneous belief in some quarters that because the CDBG money would be used to rebuild the electric infrastructure of investor owned utilities, it will benefit a private corporation and its shareholders. That is not the case. Under the law, a utility earning less than its allowed rate of return, as is the situation with the two Maine utilities, is constitutionally entitled to pass along prudently incurred costs to its ratepayers. And there can be little doubt that the cost of rebuilding the system by which electricity is delivered to our homes and businesses is not only a prudent cost, but indeed, a cost that must be incurred. Let me make this point somewhat differently. Without federal help, the money to rebuild the system will not come from corporate coffers. It will not come from the pockets of company executives. It will not come from the dividends or equity of shareholders. Who will bear the expense? It will be the elderly widow who heats her mobile home with electricity and is already struggling to pay her bills. It will be the small company that uses electricity in its manufacturing process and is already fighting an uphill battle because its power costs are 40% above the national average. Indeed, it will be virtually all Maine's ratepayers, who because we all use electricity, are really the same as Maine's taxpayers. That makes them the very people who have paid their fair share to help defray the costs of natural disasters that have struck other regions. Mr. President, let me dispel another potential misconception. This assistance will not result in special treatment for the citizens of Maine, New York, and Vermont, but rather put them on an equal footing with people in other parts of the country. To be more specific, it is well established that federal emergency aid can be made available to municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives. Some might argue that ours is a different situation, in that we are dealing with investor owned utilities. Once again, that argument would make sense if the utility stood to benefit from the relief. But it is the ratepayers who will be assisted by this amendment, and there is no reason why the victims of a natural disaster should be helped if they are customers of a municipal utility or an electric cooperative but not if they are customers of an investor owned utility. Mr. President, in the case at hand, the utilities are really like the post office. They deliver the bills; they do not pay them. Without the CDBG money made available through this amendment, the people who will pay are those to whom the bills will ultimately come--the ordinary citizens of Maine, New York, and Vermont. And since, unlike a progressive tax system, electric rates are not based on income, those who will be hurt the most will be those least able to afford it. Let me also emphasize that to use the money provided by this amendment to rebuild our electric infrastructure does not require legislation to authorize a new type of spending. That authority is already found in existing HUD regulations. To quote the relevant language, CDBG funds may be used to acquire, construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate, or install the distribution lines of privately owned utilities. . . . In short, this amendment provides the funds to carry out an already existing program under circumstances where that program is urgently needed by the citizens of our three states. To give my colleagues a better understanding of the source of that need, I would offer a description of the storm not in my words but in the words of ``The President's Action Plan for Recovery from the January 1998 Ice Storm.'' The storms of January 1998 will not soon be forgotten. . . . While ice storms are not uncommon to the region, the system that battered the . . . region in early January was unprecedented. Below-freezing temperatures combined with record rainfall to cover an area extending from Western New York to Maine with solid ice. . . . The results were staggering. Massive tree limbs shattered under the weight of the ice, choking roads and trails with wood debris. Power lines snapped, leaving communities without electrical power in bone chilling temperatures. At the height of the crisis, nearly 500,000 homes and businesses were without electric power. Of greatest significance is the following observation in the President's report: ``The single most critical concern is the loss of electric power caused by the storm.'' Let me supplement the description in the President's report with facts from Maine. For at least some part of the storm, more than 800,000 people, or seven our of every ten of our residents, lost power. In most instances, they went without electricity for days, lasting in some cases as long as two weeks. When you contemplate this, keep in mind that it occurred in the dead of winter--not a Washington winter but a Maine winter. The storm spared no one. Not homes, not businesses, not public buildings. Schools across the southern half of the State closed, causing some to cancel their winter vacations to make up part of the lost time. Even the National Weather Service in Gray, Maine lost power for more than a week, during which time it struggled mightily to track weather developments with a less than fully reliable generator. For many, the experience was like the movie, ``The Day the Earth Stood Still.'' Only it lasted far more than a day and occurred during the most difficult time of year. The restoration of power involved a monumental effort taking 17 days. Twelve hundred utility crews from as far away as Nova Scotia, North Carolina, and Michigan were sent to Maine to help with the effort. Approximately 3000 utility poles and three million feet of electric cable had to be replaced. All of the poles in one ten-mile stretch were down, cutting off power to a large section of a rural county. In the words of Maine's Governor, it seemed like a huge monster had walked across the state deliberately stepping on all of the electric lines in its path. As if guided by a perverse force, the Ice Storm of 1998 struck a region with some of the highest electric prices in the country. The rates in both Maine and the affected areas of New York are 40% above the national average. Thus, without this federal assistance, the rebuilding costs will fall on some of our country's most heavily burdened ratepayers. Some of the areas hit by the storm were already economically distressed. Indeed, looking at the entire region, one observer has concluded that the victims of the storm were predominantly persons of low and moderate income who, even without increased electric rates, have been seriously harmed by this disaster. Mr. President, the two utilities serving the areas affected by the storm in Maine are not wealthy. Indeed, one has been wrestling with serious money problems, and the financial performance of the other has been mediocre at best. Furthermore, while they are private companies, they are also public utilities. When the ice storm hit, they could not shut down operations. They could not leave the state until times were better. To the contrary, they had a legal and moral obligation to do whatever it took to restore power to people desperately in need of electricity. While their performance will ultimately be judged by the State Public Utilities Commission, there is no evidence that they made anything less than a maximum effort to discharge their public responsibility. Under these circumstances, should the utilities be able to recover from the ratepayers the cost of rebuilding Maine's electric infrastructure? I would be hard pressed to say that would be an unreasonable result, but in the final analysis, my opinion is irrelevant. What matters, and the only thing that matters, is that the law mandates such a result. Mr. President, on a comparative basis, Maine is not affluent, but its people have a generous spirit. They believe in helping their neighbors, whether those neighbors live across the street or 3000 miles away. They have gladly paid their fair share to help their neighbors in California recover from earthquakes, to help their neighbors in the Midwest recover from floods, and to help their neighbors in the Southeast recover from hurricanes. Their generosity has to not been limited to money, as they have sent men and women to fight forest fires in the Northwest. They have not split hairs over the precise source or nature of the harm. As long as the ultimate victims of a disaster have been ordinary citizens like themselves, they have stood ready to help. Mr. Chairman, the situation has changed, and we are now the neighbor in need of assistance. By making funds available to help us defray the costs of rebuilding our electric infrastructure, our neighbors will be treating us as we have treated them.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Workplace Information, Readability and Electronic Dissemination (or WIRED) Act, which will significantly improve the ability of both workers and employers to use and understand the Material Safety Data Sheets that accompany potentially hazardous chemicals used in the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration rightly requires employers to provide information to their employees about hazardous chemicals used in the workplace on Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDSs. These MSDSs, which are provided by the manufacturer, must be ``readily accessible'' to employees during each work shift and must include information about the manufacturer, the physical properties of the chemical, health precautions that should be taken, and instructions on how to handle spills and other emergencies. OSHA issued the rule requiring MSDSs in the workplace in the early 1980s, well before computers and fax machines became routine fixtures in virtually every workplace. As a consequence, employers are required to keep huge, loose-leaf notebooks or file cabinets filled with handwritten or printed MSDSs in the workplace at all times. More often than not, the MSDSs are tattered, stained and out-of-date since, in an average inventory, as many as 7 percent will become obsolete within a month. Finding the right MSDS quickly in an emergency under these circumstances can be a real challenge, particularly since they can easily be misfiled. In this age of electronic communication, there simply are better ways for employers and employees to maintain and access this important safety information. Currently, there are a number of different products on the market such as CD-ROMs and fax-on-demand response systems that provide all the MSDS information an employer or employee might need within minutes of the request. Businesses contend that these services are more efficient, since they allow an independent service to maintain the information and the employees to access the information instantaneously and at will. Not only are computer systems faster, but they also enable employees to cross-reference different chemicals. These electronic systems are certainly better that the current paper system required by OSHA, which requires fumbling through a notebook or file cabinet, hoping that the MSDSs are current and filed correctly. Unfortunately, OSHA will not allow employers to replace their paper MSDS systems with electronic access. As a consequence, many employers have been reluctant to take advantage of these superior new systems. The legislation we are introducing today will enable employers to bring their MSDS system into the 21st century by clarifying that employers have the option of replacing their paper system with electronic access, as long as the new system is readily available to all employees. Another problem with the current system is that the information presented on a MSDS is extremely technical and complicated, making it difficult for many employees to understand, particularly when an accident has occurred and time is of the essence. Not only is the information on the MSDS itself technical, but it is also presented in language that is too advanced for the vast majority of manufacturing workers to understand. According to a review of the National Center for Education Statistics 1992 Adult Literacy Survey, the information on a typical MSDS requires a Level 5 reading proficiency, while the same survey shows that manufacturing workers typically read at a Level 2. This situation is complicated by the fact that there is no standard format for MSDSs and different manufacturers have different formats for presenting the same information. This makes it difficult for employees who must look at more than one MSDS to find the information they need quickly, and quick information is particularly important in an emergency. The legislation we are introducing today will therefore require OSHA not only to standardize the format for MSDSs, but also to ensure that they are written at a literacy level that is appropriate for the typical industrial worker. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today will not only make it easier for employers to comply with important OSHA safety standards, but it will also ensure that their employees have better access to accurate and up-to-date safety information that they can both read and understand. Enactment of the WIRED Act will result in safer, more efficient workplaces, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Workplace Information, Readability and Electronic Dissemination (or WIRED) Act, which will significantly improve the ability of both workers and employers to use and understand the Material Safety Data Sheets that accompany potentially hazardous chemicals used in the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration rightly requires employers to provide information to their employees about hazardous chemicals used in the workplace on Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDSs. These MSDSs, which are provided by the manufacturer, must be ``readily accessible'' to employees during each work shift and must include information about the manufacturer, the physical properties of the chemical, health precautions that should be taken, and instructions on how to handle spills and other emergencies. OSHA issued the rule requiring MSDSs in the workplace in the early 1980s, well before computers and fax machines became routine fixtures in virtually every workplace. As a consequence, employers are required to keep huge, loose-leaf notebooks or file cabinets filled with handwritten or printed MSDSs in the workplace at all times. More often than not, the MSDSs are tattered, stained and out-of-date since, in an average inventory, as many as 7 percent will become obsolete within a month. Finding the right MSDS quickly in an emergency under these circumstances can be a real challenge, particularly since they can easily be misfiled. In this age of electronic communication, there simply are better ways for employers and employees to maintain and access this important safety information. Currently, there are a number of different products on the market such as CD-ROMs and fax-on-demand response systems that provide all the MSDS information an employer or employee might need within minutes of the request. Businesses contend that these services are more efficient, since they allow an independent service to maintain the information and the employees to access the information instantaneously and at will. Not only are computer systems faster, but they also enable employees to cross-reference different chemicals. These electronic systems are certainly better that the current paper system required by OSHA, which requires fumbling through a notebook or file cabinet, hoping that the MSDSs are current and filed correctly. Unfortunately, OSHA will not allow employers to replace their paper MSDS systems with electronic access. As a consequence, many employers have been reluctant to take advantage of these superior new systems. The legislation we are introducing today will enable employers to bring their MSDS system into the 21st century by clarifying that employers have the option of replacing their paper system with electronic access, as long as the new system is readily available to all employees. Another problem with the current system is that the information presented on a MSDS is extremely technical and complicated, making it difficult for many employees to understand, particularly when an accident has occurred and time is of the essence. Not only is the information on the MSDS itself technical, but it is also presented in language that is too advanced for the vast majority of manufacturing workers to understand. According to a review of the National Center for Education Statistics 1992 Adult Literacy Survey, the information on a typical MSDS requires a Level 5 reading proficiency, while the same survey shows that manufacturing workers typically read at a Level 2. This situation is complicated by the fact that there is no standard format for MSDSs and different manufacturers have different formats for presenting the same information. This makes it difficult for employees who must look at more than one MSDS to find the information they need quickly, and quick information is particularly important in an emergency. The legislation we are introducing today will therefore require OSHA not only to standardize the format for MSDSs, but also to ensure that they are written at a literacy level that is appropriate for the typical industrial worker. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today will not only make it easier for employers to comply with important OSHA safety standards, but it will also ensure that their employees have better access to accurate and up-to-date safety information that they can both read and understand. Enactment of the WIRED Act will result in safer, more efficient workplaces, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. If I could have 3 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his courtesy. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. I cannot speak to the value of some of the projects which he has singled out in this amendment, but I can speak to the necessity of providing assistance to the maple sugar producers in northern New England. Maine and other northern New England States recently endured the ice storm of the century. Part of the result of that ice storm was extensive damage to the forests in Maine. Our maple sugar producers have been severely hurt by the ice storm. Their trees may well take a very long time to recover. These maple sugar producers in northern New England have fallen through the cracks of our traditional disaster assistance programs. They need our assistance. This bill would provide a modest amount of money, $4.48 million in funds, that are desperately needed for these small maple sugar producers to recover from the impact of this devastating storm. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona also raises important public policy issues. We have more than one branch of government in this country. The idea that the President and the President alone should solely dictate what is in an urgent supplemental bill should give us all cause for alarm. It is inconsistent with the traditions of this noble body and it is contrary to the public interests. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to table the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator would yield, I will speak in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Finally, Mr. President, I want to clarify that it is my understanding that if the money in these accounts is not used while the child is in elementary school or secondary school, that it can in fact be used for the very important purpose of helping a family afford college costs or postsecondary costs. Am I correct in my understanding?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, contrary to the assertions of opponents to this legislation, the fact is that it will bring more money to our public schools, and it is a very pro-education pro-public-schools piece of legislation that the Senator from Georgia has brought forth. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his reassurances in this very important matter. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. If I could expand on the point of the Senator from Georgia, who has answered my final concern in this regard, approximately 70 percent of the parents who would benefit from this important legislation have children in public schools. Is that correct?

Ms. COLLINS. Similarly, I ask the Senator from Georgia to clarify that the money in these A+ accounts could be used in fact to assist children that are attending public schools. I believe that is one of the purposes of this bill. For example, am I correct in believing that parents whose children attend public schools could use the money set aside in these savings accounts to purchase a computer, for example, or to hire a tutor to help their children, or perhaps to pay for a school trip--again, all related to the public schools? Is my understanding correct?

Ms. COLLINS. I very much appreciate the Senator from Georgia clarifying that important point. Many of us may differ on the issue of vouchers, but the fact is that this bill is not a bill to authorize vouchers, despite some of the information circulated by the opponents of the bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of public education. Increasingly, more education is key to the American dream. I would not support any legislation that I felt in any way undermines this country's commitment to public education. There have been a lot of myths and misinformation circulated about the bill that the distinguished Senator from Georgia has taken such a leadership role in drafting and bringing to the floor. I would like to engage the Senator from Georgia in a colloquy in an attempt to put to rest some of the misinformation that has been circulated about his proposal. First, I want to commend him for his leadership. I know that he is sincerely committed to improving the quality of education in this country. He has been a real leader on this issue, and it has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with him. The Senator from Georgia and I have had many conversations about this bill. I, too, had some misinformation about it in the beginning, and the Senator from Georgia was able to alleviate my concerns. For the record, I would like to publicly ask some questions of the Senator from Georgia so that everyone may have the benefit of this information. First, as the Senator from Georgia knows, I oppose vouchers because they would divert needed funds from our public schools. I would ask the Senator from Georgia, does this bill in any way divert money from local school districts that would otherwise be used for public education? Does this bill in any way authorize school vouchers?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. It is.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in a colloquy in order to clarify that a specific kind of innovative materials research will be eligible for funding under this bill. Many of our Nation's bridges have been in service far longer than originally planned. As a result, they have fallen into a state of serious disrepair. Many of them are in need of outright replacement. Over the past several years, the Federal Government has supported research in an effort to develop a new, stronger, and more environmentally sensitive material for use in bridge construction. One of the most promising developments in this area is a new technology known as ``wood composites.'' These materials combine wood, an abundant and renewable resource, with modern composites to give the wood significantly more strength and durability. I am proud to say that the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center has been a leader in developing wood composite technologies, and it has done so in part with research funds from the National Science Foundation. That research has now advanced to the point where composite-reinforced wood is being used in pilot projects in Maine and elsewhere in the United States. Wood composites have shown a great deal of promise as a means of providing low-cost, extremely durable, and environmentally safe material for building and repairing bridges. Given its performance and its promise, we should be enthusiastically promoting further development of this exciting new technology. I have discussed with the chairman my strong support for ensuring that the research involving wood composites, specifically wood fiber- reinforced plastic composites, will be eligible for funding under the sections of this legislation. Specifically, the bill authorizes funding to: First, establish four new national university transportation centers; second, section 2005 of the bill authorizes funding for the Department of Transportation's basic research and technology programs over the next 6 years; third, section 2001 of the bill authorizes funding for the Federal Highway Administration's National Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership Program; and, finally, section 2013 of the legislation authorizes funding for an innovative bridge research and construction program. The purpose of my colloquy with the distinguished chairman today is to confirm my understanding that the ongoing research involving wood FRP composites is eligible for funding under all of these sections of the ISTEA reauthorization bill, and further that the University of Maine's Wood Composites Center will be eligible to apply for designation as one of the new NUTCs authorized in the bill. I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, for any reassurances that he might be able to give me in this regard.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. We will throw in a lobster dinner as well.

Ms. COLLINS. That's right.