Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Tax Incentive Act of 2003

I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs.

While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder.

A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband.

Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents.

In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom.

In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia.

Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women.

My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation.

The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence.

The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved.

Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language.

Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national.

Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country

themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship.

Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history.

Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home.

Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men.

IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation.

It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done.

My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms.

My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claims issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Alaska Native Corporations.

The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance, respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands, subject only to the survey of the final boundary.

This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native coporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manage their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock.

The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims.

For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse, yet, are the 2,500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16,000 parcels. Almost 14,000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed.

While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present

the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred.

Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights of changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. It too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution.

This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority for solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele.

This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker.

Mr. President, I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009.

In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable.

Additionally, more than 20 cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing.

Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the Government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized.

The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.

Mr. President, today I once again join with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of mismanagement of assets held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians.

Indian country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have had more far-ranging ramifications on the lives of individual Native Americans, or been more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management.

For over 100 years, the Department of the Interior has administered a trust fund containing the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land for the benefit of Indian people. Today, that trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.

To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska hold 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts.

There is little disagreement that current government administration of the trust fund is a failure. However, there is no consensus on how to reform it.

Senators McCain, Johnson, and I believe that Congress should be more assertive in promoting a solution to the trust management problem and in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a true voice in shaping that solution. That is why we have proposed legislation that would redesign the trust management process.

Today, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I are introducing a revised version of S. 175, a trust reform proposal we introduced earlier this year. This bill incorporates feedback we received from interested stakeholders and responds to developments that have occurred since S. 175 was introduced.

We are joined in this effort by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall who are introducing a companion measure in the House. I commend them for their commitment to correcting the trust management problem and value their leadership on this issue.

This legislation lays out legislative standards that form the cornerstone of the United States of America's trust responsibility to Indian nations. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a historical accounting for all trust accounts, regardless of amount, and authorizes an Indian tribe to manage Indian trust funds or trust assets through contracts or compacts. The trust responsibility of the Secretary or the trust status of funds and assets is not terminated but a voluntary option of cobeneficiary management is allowed if a tribe chooses that option.

A clear line of authority for trust management is established by elevating the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs to Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs status. The special trustee's responsibilities are transferred to the Deputy Secretary, and the special trustee is terminated as intended in the 1994 act.

Finally, a temporary congressional commission is created to review trust funds management by the Department of the Interior. Comprised of 12 members, it will review and assess Federal management of trust funds and provide recommendations relating to the administrative and management duties of the Department.

It is our hope that this proposal will encourage more constructive dialog among the Congress, the Interior Department, and Indian country on the

trust management problem and lead to a true consensus solution. With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Congress of American Indians, the InterTribal Monitoring Association, and the tribes of Arizona.

With respect to the Great Plains tribes, I would like to note that Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been a particularly eloquent advocate and effective champion of trust reform. Mike and Cheyenne River Sioux tribal chairman, Harold Frazier, led very productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska that both raised awareness of the importance of this issue and built support for the bill that is being introduced today.

I commend the commitment and contribution of the participating Great Plains tribal leaders who have been an integral part of a public process that will not stop until the trust management problem is solved. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill is intended to contribute to this result.

It should also be noted and understood that we are not addressing the Cobell litigation or settlement issues in this bill. Our focus is the broader trust responsibility of the Department of the Interior.

The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill or in Indian country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts--some well intentioned and some clearly not--to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities.

These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement of tribal leadership or respected the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes.

Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management is a matter of fundamental justice. Nowhere do the principles of self- determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets.

I am deeply disappointed that this problem has not been solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders by now. That fight is not over.

An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, administration officials, and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to serve as the basis for much needed reforms to the Federal Government's management of Indian trust funds and trust assets within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Johnson, in this effort, as well as by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall whom are sponsoring a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is a reflection of a continuing effort by my colleagues and myself to develop a trust reform proposal that will not only serve to improve the Federal Government's administration and management of Indian trust funds and trust assets but it will also institute a role for Indian tribes to participate in developing additional needed reforms and enhance the principles of tribal self- determination.

Earlier this year, Senators Daschle, Johnson, and myself introduced similar trust reform legislation and received substantive feedback from Indian country on the bill. This feedback helped us in developing this new legislative proposal, which will serve as the framework for instituting broader reforms necessary for long-term management of tribal trust resources and enhancing Federal Indian policy. I thank the tribes and tribal organizations such as the Inter Tribal Monitoring Association, the Native American Rights Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, which worked with our offices and helped to formulate the concepts embodied in this proposal. We are encouraged by their efforts and support to seek a legislative remedy to these difficult problems.

The basic elements of this bill focus on three primary areas: the management of trust funds and trust assets will be elevated in the overall Department by designating a Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs to assume the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee. Second, as determined by the court and the administration, it is Congress' duty to affirm fiduciary standards for proper management of these trust funds and trust assets, and this bill includes such standards. And, third, the role of the tribes is enhanced through affirmation of the authority of tribes to utilize self-determination laws to manage their own funds and assets. Tribes will also be engaged in determining additional necessary reforms through participation in an established congressional commission.

The mismanagement of Indian trust funds is a long and disgraceful chapter in the history of this Nation. The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act was enacted to take measures to reconcile these accounts and return the money to the Native American beneficiaries. Unfortunately, as continuing management problems persist and Native Americans are left out of the decision-making process about the management of their resources, it is time for Congress to step up and take decisive action to once again require significant reform with the active participation of the tribes.

I am pleased that Senators Daschle and Johnson are committed to working with me once again on this legislation, and I am also encouraged by the interest of our House counterparts to jointly introduce this bill with us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the tribes to advance this legislation. We are willing to consider additional review and comments and expect to further refine this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, our Nation awoke to the realization that we are not as safe as we once believed. Soon after, we began critical efforts to improve our homeland security. Those efforts remain ongoing today. As we work to improve the security of our homeland, securing our borders remains one of the most difficult and important challenges facing our Nation today. The simple fact is, our borders are not secure, and no amount of money, equipment, or manpower alone will not ensure the safety of our Nation.

Over the past several years, I have supported many efforts to improve border security and address the repercussions of poor enforcement and failed immigration policies. It is imperative that we not shirk from what are Federal responsibilities. We must address the many unfunded mandates born by States and local communities because control of immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government. We must continue efforts designed to improve infrastructure and technology at and between our ports of entry as well as enhance coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel. However, without comprehensive immigration reform, all of these efforts will be ineffective and meaningless.

In order to address these concerns and to balance the need to secure our borders while addressing the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Nation's immigration policy, I am introducing the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. This bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform package introduced this Congress, and I hope that it will serve to initiate an important and necessary dialog so that we may address the security needs of our country and reform our failed immigration system.

The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act establishes two new visa programs. One addresses individuals wishing to enter the United States to work on a short-term basis while the other will be available for the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing legislation addressing the critical issue of bacterial resistance to antibiotics arising from overuse of these valuable drugs in humans and animals.

Alexander Fleming's discovery of the antibacterial effects of penicillin in 1929 represented the dawning of a new era in medicine. In the decades after its discovery, penicillin became a miracle drug-- allowing physicians to cure diseases that previously would have been untreatable--and literally saved millions of lives.

Antibiotics are crucial in curing a variety of common diseases that could result in severe illness or even death if left untreated. The anthrax attacks

after September 11 showed us another need for antibiotics that sadly is a continuing threat in our global community--bioterrorism. Many of us in the Capitol relied on the effective treatment of antibiotics to counteract exposure to the anthrax spores and maintain our health during those weeks and months when our Nation was grieving the horrible impact of terrorism in our homeland.

Unfortunately, decades after the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, diseases of bacterial origin remain a real and increasing threat to public health. Overuse of medically important antibiotics in humans and animals promotes resistance in bacteria. Infections caused by resistant bacteria cannot be treated with traditional antibiotics. If left unchecked, the problem of bacterial resistance represents an impending public health crisis.

Recogizing the public health threat, Congress already took steps to curb antibiotic overuse in humans by amending the Public Health Service Act and the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act. Unfortunately, the issue of antibiotic overuse in animals has not been addressed in Federal law.

We recognize the value of antibiotics in treating disease in humans and animals. Unfortunately, it is common practice to put antibiotics, which are similar or identical to those used in human medicine, in the food or water of healthy animals intended for human consumption to promote these animals' growth and compensate for their unsanitary conditions. This practice poses an environmental threat and jeopardizes the effectiveness of these drugs in treating ill people and animals. Our legislation provides for the phased elimination of nontherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in food animals unless such usage is deemed safe through rigorous scientific evaluation.

Foodborne illness affects millions of Americans each year and is estimated to cost the economy up to $35 billion annually in medical expenses and lost productivity alone. Tragically, the worst foodborne illnesses cause thousands of deaths and disproportionally target the very young and the elderly each year in the United States. The impact of foodborne illness in developing countries is even more severe. By itself, the magnitude of this public health hazard necessitates action to ensure the safety of our food supply. I hope the improved data collection and monitoring of antibiotics used in food animals included in our legislation will help provide a more complete picture of the contributing factors to these devastating illnesses.

Our legislation provides for research and demonstration grants to colleges and universities to exploit advances in biotechnology and animal science to discover new, safer methods of inexpensive, responsible agricultural productivity. We appreciate the good intentions of the many farmers across our Nation, and our legislation establishes transition funds to help these families and businesses implement changes that will benefit us all.

I have received numerous letters from groups and individuals in Maine who were concerned that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture was not being actively addressed by Congress. I appreciate all who took the time to voice their concerns to me. I extend my personal thanks to all who have invested so much time and energy in educating Members of Congress as well as the public on this critical issue.

I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation today that will address this crucial issue. I applaud the steps that some businesses have taken voluntarily to discourage use of antibiotics in healthy animals. It is my hope that our legislation as well as the voluntary efforts by businesses across the Nation will help to ensure that we have drugs available that are effective in treating diseases for many years to come.