Floor Statements

Mr. President, I don't know if the Presiding Officer has ever visited Acadia National Park along the coast of Maine. It is an extraordinary place, a place of special beauty. I rise today to introduce the Acadia National Park Improvement Act Of 2007, with the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, as my cosponsor.

This legislation would take important steps to ensure the long-term health of one of America's most beloved national parks. It would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia by $10 million, facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island Explorer bus system, and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission.

In drafting this legislation, I have worked very closely with park officials and also with Friends of Acadia, a nonprofit community organization that works hard to support the park.

A little background might be helpful. In 1986, Congress enacted legislation designating the boundary of Acadia National Park. Many private lands were, however, contained within the permanent authorized boundary. Congress authorized the park to spend a little over $9 million to acquire those lands from willing sellers.

While all of that money has now been spent, rising land prices have prevented the money from going as far as Congress originally intended. There are now more than 100 private tracts left within the official park boundary. Nearly 20 of these tracts are currently available from willing sellers, but the park simply no longer has the funds to purchase them. Our legislation would authorize an additional $10 million to help acquire these lands. I wish to emphasize that the lands already fall within the authorized boundary of the park, so we are not talking about enlarging the boundary of the park but, rather, filling in the holes at Acadia.

Our legislation would also facilitate the development of an intermodal transportation center as part of the Island Explorer bus system. The Island Explorer has been extremely successful over its first 7 years. These low-emission, propane-powered vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders since 1999. In doing so, they have removed hundreds of thousands of vehicles from the park and significantly reduced pollution. Unfortunately, the system lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As a result, day-use visitors do not have ready access to the Island Explorer.

My legislation would further facilitate the Department of Interior's assistance in planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center in Trenton, ME. Mr. President, $7 million for this center was included in the 2005 highway bill at the request of Senator Snowe and myself. This will include parking for day uses of the park center, a visitor orientation facility highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding area, and a bus maintenance garage. This center, which will be built in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Maine Department of Transportation, and other partners, will reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources, enhance the visitor experience, and ensure a vibrant tourist economy.

Finally, our legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 20-year period. This Commission was created by the Congress back in 1986, and, regrettably, it expired last year. The Commission consists of three Federal representatives, three State representatives, four representatives from local towns, three from the adjacent mainland communities, and three from the adjacent offshore islands. These representatives serving on this Commission have provided invaluable advice related to the management and the development of the park. The superintendent has found it to be very valuable. The Commission has proven its worth many times over, and it deserves to be extended for an additional 20 years. In fact, it probably should just be made permanent.

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline. The park is one of Maine's most popular tourist destinations, with more than 2 million visitors each year. While unsurpassed in beauty, the park's ecosystem is very fragile. Unless we are careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers and, indeed, all Americans hold so dear. In 9 years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought both increasing popularity and greater pressures on this national treasure. By providing an additional $10 million to protect sensitive lands already within the boundary of the park, by expanding the highly successful Island Explorer transportation system, and by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, this legislation will help to make the park stronger and healthier than ever on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise to submit Senate Resolution 171 to memorialize our country's fallen firefighters by lowering U.S. flags to half-staff each year on the day of National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, it is my honor to sponsor the tribute to some of America's bravest and most dedicated public servants. I am pleased that Senators Biden, McCain, Mikulski, Carper, and Dodd have joined me in sponsoring this resolution.

More than a million men and women work in the fire service in the United States. They respond to more than 22 million emergencies every year, including not only fires, but accidents, medical emergencies, hazardous spills, and terror attacks.

And each year, about 100 of these brave firefighters die in the line of duty, often in circumstances too terrifying and agonizing for us to imagine. The sad toll in 2006 was 105 firefighters.

Recognizing the many dangers of our firefighters' profession and the essential public service that they selflessly provide, Congress has taken practical steps to ensure that firefighters possess the equipment and other resources needed to safely fulfill their many missions. For example, in 2001, Congress created the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, otherwise known as the Fire Act Grants, which fire departments--including many in Maine--have used to buy much-needed equipment and to fund training, health, and fitness programs.

Congress has also taken symbolic steps to honor the brave firefighters who have died in the line of duty. Under the leadership of our retired colleague senator Paul Sarbanes, Congress established the non-profit National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to honor America's fallen firefighters and to support their families.

The Foundation maintains the official national memorial to fallen firefighters in Emmitsburg, MD, and conducts an annual memorial weekend that draws thousands of firefighters and the families from around the country.

The memorial weekend, begun in 1982, will be held this year October 5 through 7, including a memorial service on Sunday, October 7.

The resolution I submit today would provide another demonstration of our respect and appreciation for our fallen firefighters. It would direct that flags on all Federal facilities would be lowered to half- staff each year on the day of the memorial service.

Our firefighters risk their lives every day for their fellow citizens. It is fitting that we offer this simple but richly symbolic tribute to all those firefighters who have given their lives in our defense.

Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of undeveloped land in the north to the small woodlots in the south, forest land has helped to shape the character of our entire State.

While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for generations, there is a threat to Maine's working landscape that requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl, which has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in southern Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land cannot compete with the value of developed land.

Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys eco-systems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities, increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. Sprawl causes the unnecessary fragmentation of open space that reduces the economic viability of the remaining working forests.

In the State of Maine, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest and farm land. The problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where an 108 percent increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of greater Portland as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''

I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and farm land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows are lost to development, they are lost forever.

Maine is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine continue to contribute their time and money to preserve important lands and to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal Government to help support these State and community-based efforts.

For these reasons, I have introduced the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program Act. This legislation, which was drafted with the advice of land owners and conservation groups, establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally driven land conservation projects that preserve working forests. Local government and nonprofit organizations would compete for funds to purchase land or access to land to protect working landscapes threatened by development.

Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In addition, this legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched dollar-for-dollar by State, local, or private resources.

This is a market-driven program that relies upon market forces rather than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather than preserving our working forests, farmland and open spaces by zoning or other government regulation, with this program we will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes to keep his or her land as a working woodlot to do so.

My legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision, which requires the consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the program.

The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry. Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.

Understanding that land ownership issues differ in other parts of the Nation, I have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation would exempt any State where the Federal Government owns 25 percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program. With the 25 percent limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to participate in this new program. Those

States, however, who are struggling most with the loss of working landscapes would be authorized to receive Federal assistance in their efforts to combat sprawl.

Third, the bill would help to preserve open space and family farms. Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME, or another community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turned to the Federal Government for assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest and farm land and managing sprawl, while leaving decision-making at the State and local level where it belongs.

The Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program Act has had a successful history in the Senate. In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. And again, in 2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress and the reauthorization of the Farm Bill provide an excellent opportunity to enact this important legislation.

There is great work being done on the local level to protect working landscapes for the next generation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide an additional avenue of support for these conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.

Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of undeveloped land in the north to the small woodlots in the south, forest land has helped to shape the character of our entire State.

While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for generations, there is a threat to Maine's working landscape that requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl, which has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in southern Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land cannot compete with the value of developed land.

Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys eco-systems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities, increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. Sprawl causes the unnecessary fragmentation of open space that reduces the economic viability of the remaining working forests.

In the State of Maine, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest and farm land. The problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where an 108 percent increase in urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling of greater Portland as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''

I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and farm land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows are lost to development, they are lost forever.

Maine is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine continue to contribute their time and money to preserve important lands and to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal Government to help support these State and community-based efforts.

For these reasons, I have introduced the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program Act. This legislation, which was drafted with the advice of land owners and conservation groups, establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally driven land conservation projects that preserve working forests. Local government and nonprofit organizations would compete for funds to purchase land or access to land to protect working landscapes threatened by development.

Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In addition, this legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched dollar-for-dollar by State, local, or private resources.

This is a market-driven program that relies upon market forces rather than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather than preserving our working forests, farmland and open spaces by zoning or other government regulation, with this program we will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes to keep his or her land as a working woodlot to do so.

My legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision, which requires the consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the program.

The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry. Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.

Understanding that land ownership issues differ in other parts of the Nation, I have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation would exempt any State where the Federal Government owns 25 percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program. With the 25 percent limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to participate in this new program. Those

States, however, who are struggling most with the loss of working landscapes would be authorized to receive Federal assistance in their efforts to combat sprawl.

Third, the bill would help to preserve open space and family farms. Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME, or another community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turned to the Federal Government for assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest and farm land and managing sprawl, while leaving decision-making at the State and local level where it belongs.

The Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program Act has had a successful history in the Senate. In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. And again, in 2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress and the reauthorization of the Farm Bill provide an excellent opportunity to enact this important legislation.

There is great work being done on the local level to protect working landscapes for the next generation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide an additional avenue of support for these conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.

Mr. President, before the two Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia leave the floor, let me express to them our sympathy and sorrow over the tremendous tragedy suffered in their State today.

A member of my staff has a son who attends this fine institution. Fortunately, she has learned that he is fine, but you can imagine her anxiety as she was waiting to hear from her son and had the television on hearing the reports.

I say to both of the Senators from Virginia that our hearts go out to them, to the members of this fine institution in Virginia, and to those who are affected by this terrible violence.

Before I turned to the issue that has brought me to the Senate floor, I just want to extend my condolences on behalf of the people of Maine to the people of Virginia.

Mr. President, can the Chair inform me of whether there is an amendment pending at the current time?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 847, which is pending at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am calling up this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Coleman, and Senator Akaka.

Our bipartisan amendment reaffirms the fundamental constitutional and statutory protections accorded to sealed domestic mail, even as we make provisions for sustaining our vital intelligence-gathering activity in the interests of advancing the goals of protecting our homeland from attack.

I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Carper of Delaware, who was the coauthor with me of the postal reform legislation that passed and was signed into law last year.

Senator Coleman and Senator Akaka have also been very active on postal issues. I have also had the opportunity to talk with the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee about this proposal.

For those who may not have followed this issue, let me first provide some brief background. On December 20, President Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that Senator Carper and I introduced last year. This new law makes the most sweeping changes in the Postal Service in more than 30 years.

The act will help the Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century, establish a new rate-setting system, help ensure a stronger financial future for the Postal Service, provide more stability and predictability in rates, and protect the basic features of universal service.

One of the act's many provisions provides continued authority for the Postal Service to establish a class of mail sealed against inspection.

Now, let me make very clear, this is not new authority. This is a continuation of authority that the Postal Service already has.

Regrettably, on the day that he signed the Postal Reform Act into law, the President also issued a signing statement which has created some confusion about the continued protection of sealed domestic mail. He construed that particular provision in our bill to permit ``searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect life and safety.''

Now, since that time, the President's spokesman has made very clear that the President's signing statement was not intended in any way to change the scope of the current law. But the statement caused confusion and concern about the President's commitment to abide by the basic privacy protections afforded sealed domestic mail. For some, it raised the specter of the Government unlawfully monitoring our mail in the name of national security.

Given this unfortunate and inaccurate perception, I wish to be very clear, as the author of the postal reform legislation; nothing in the Postal Reform Act nor in the President's signing statement in any way alters the privacy and civil liberty protections provided to a person who sends or receives sealed mail.

In fact, the President's signing statement appears to do nothing more than restate current law. By issuing the signing statement, however, the President, unfortunately, generated questions about the administration's intent.

I am confident the administration does not intend to interpret the law differently or change the constitutional or statutory protections. But, unfortunately, this is the case, again, of where the President stepped forward and issued a signing statement, upon signing this bill into law, that has created concern and confusion where none existed before. I think it is unfortunate the President did so.

Under current law, mail sealed against inspection is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. With only limited exceptions, the Government needs a court warrant before it can search sealed mail. This is true whether the search is conducted to gather evidence under our Criminal Code or to collect foreign intelligence information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, perhaps better known as the FISA Act.

Exceptions to the warrant requirements of the fourth amendment are limited. When there is an immediate danger to life or limb or an immediate and substantial danger to property, then the Postal Service can search a domestic sealed letter or package without a warrant. Let me give you examples of what we are talking about. What we are talking about when we are talking about immediate threats could include wires protruding from a package that gives one the reasonable belief there may be a bomb inside. Another example might be odors or stains that indicate the presence of a hazardous material.

Americans depend upon the U.S. Postal Service to transact business and to communicate with friends and family. If there is any doubt in the public's mind that the Federal Government is not protecting the constitutional privacy accorded their mail, if there is a suspicion that the Government is unlawfully opening mail, then our people's confidence in the sanctity of our mail system and even in our Government itself will be undermined.

That is why I have joined my colleagues in offering this amendment today. It makes clear to all law-abiding Americans that the Federal Government will not invade their privacy by reading their sealed mail, absent a court order or exigent circumstances. Any contrary interpretation of the Postal Reform Act is just plain wrong. I think it is important that the Senate go on record affirming this basic constitutional privacy--statutory privacy, as well--that Americans have always counted on.

Our amendment will do nothing to weaken the vital protections we have created against terrorist attacks, but it will remove any doubt that our fundamental protections of privacy rights have in some way been weakened by the signing statement that, unfortunately, the President chose to issue.

So I urge my colleagues to remove any doubt, to make it clear that the new law, on which we worked so hard for 3 years and which was signed into law last December, does not change this in any way.

Again, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member for their willingness to discuss this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce a bill that would solve a serious health-insurance problem for some Americans who work on Campobello Island, Canada, near the Maine border, at a park that honors the memory of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ten residents of the State of Maine are employed on that beautiful island by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park. The park centers on the spacious summer cottage that FDR loved and visited often, from his childhood in the 1880s up to his last trip in 1939. Today, the Roosevelt cottage and the park draw thousands of visitors from around the world.

The Roosevelt Campobello International Park was dedicated in 1964 as a memorial to President Roosevelt, and is funded by both the U.S. and the Canadian Governments under terms of a treaty.

Unfortunately, the drafters of the treaty did not address the need for health insurance for park employees. As a result, the State Department concluded in 1965 that those employees ``shall be subject to the relevant Canadian labor laws.'' Based on that State Department opinion, the U.S. Civil Service Commission--precursor of the Office of Personnel Management--determined that the employees were not eligible for Federal Employee Health Benefits Program coverage.

Meanwhile, even if the employees could join the Canadian health plan, the park's location makes it impractical for them to seek medical treatment in Canada. The closest doctors and hospitals are in Maine, and the only access to the park is from the United States.

Consequently, the employees have relied on a small-group insurance plan negotiated by the Park Commission and have paid for their own insurance. But as with millions of other Americans, drastic increases in premiums have made that small-group plan unaffordable for the Park employees. The result is a genuine hardship for them and their families.

My bill will resolve this problem simply, by making these employees eligible for FEHBP health insurance. This is a matter of equal treatment as well as compassion. Full-time employees of other joint- responsibility parks on the U.S.A.-Canada border, like Glacier National Park, are already eligible for coverage under the FEHBP.

Adding this handful of employees to the rolls is a negligible cost to the government, but a huge relief for these deserving citizens.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. He serves ably on the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission, and so understands the problem faced by my Maine constituents employed at the park.

I hope that our colleagues will join us to support this bill so that the American citizens maintaining a park honoring a great American President will be treated fairly. I ask unanimous concent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce a bill that would solve a serious health-insurance problem for some Americans who work on Campobello Island, Canada, near the Maine border, at a park that honors the memory of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ten residents of the State of Maine are employed on that beautiful island by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park. The park centers on the spacious summer cottage that FDR loved and visited often, from his childhood in the 1880s up to his last trip in 1939. Today, the Roosevelt cottage and the park draw thousands of visitors from around the world.

The Roosevelt Campobello International Park was dedicated in 1964 as a memorial to President Roosevelt, and is funded by both the U.S. and the Canadian Governments under terms of a treaty.

Unfortunately, the drafters of the treaty did not address the need for health insurance for park employees. As a result, the State Department concluded in 1965 that those employees ``shall be subject to the relevant Canadian labor laws.'' Based on that State Department opinion, the U.S. Civil Service Commission--precursor of the Office of Personnel Management--determined that the employees were not eligible for Federal Employee Health Benefits Program coverage.

Meanwhile, even if the employees could join the Canadian health plan, the park's location makes it impractical for them to seek medical treatment in Canada. The closest doctors and hospitals are in Maine, and the only access to the park is from the United States.

Consequently, the employees have relied on a small-group insurance plan negotiated by the Park Commission and have paid for their own insurance. But as with millions of other Americans, drastic increases in premiums have made that small-group plan unaffordable for the Park employees. The result is a genuine hardship for them and their families.

My bill will resolve this problem simply, by making these employees eligible for FEHBP health insurance. This is a matter of equal treatment as well as compassion. Full-time employees of other joint- responsibility parks on the U.S.A.-Canada border, like Glacier National Park, are already eligible for coverage under the FEHBP.

Adding this handful of employees to the rolls is a negligible cost to the government, but a huge relief for these deserving citizens.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. He serves ably on the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission, and so understands the problem faced by my Maine constituents employed at the park.

I hope that our colleagues will join us to support this bill so that the American citizens maintaining a park honoring a great American President will be treated fairly. I ask unanimous concent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding time to me.

As a longtime supporter of stem cell research, I am pleased the Senate is once again taking up the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill. It will expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research, enabling scientists to take full advantage of the scientific and medical opportunities provided by stem cells. At the same time, the bill establishes clear standards to ensure this research is conducted ethically.

The promise of embryonic stem cell lines lies in their potential to develop into virtually any cell, tissue, or organ in the body. As a consequence, this research holds tremendous potential to treat, and perhaps even cure, a vast array of diseases and conditions. Researchers could, for example, potentially generate insulin-producing islet cells for patients with juvenile diabetes; neurons to treat Parkinson's disease, ALS, and Alzheimer's, as well as bone marrow cells to treat cancer. It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans are afflicted by diseases or disabilities that have the potential to be treated through this promising research.

I have heard some of our colleagues today, in arguing against this bill, say that the promise won't be fulfilled, that it is overblown, and that it is raising false hopes. We cannot say for certain what avenue of scientific research is necessarily going to produce the results all of us hope for, but surely it makes no sense to cut off a promising source of research that could benefit from Federal funds. I, for one, am very optimistic about the potential. There are no guarantees. There are no guarantees with any scientific research, but certainly the promise is there. It would be foolhardy for us to continue to restrict this research, to place artificial barriers in the way of research that offers such hope and such promise to so many American families.

In August of 2001, President Bush announced that Federal funds could, for the first time, be used to support research on embryonic stem cells. But that research, under the President's Executive order, was limited to existing stem cell lines that were created prior to 9 p.m. on that day.

In the 5\1/2\ years since the President made that announcement, this stem cell policy has fallen far short of its original goals. While the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry at the NIH lists 78 stem cell lines, at best, no more than 22 lines will ever be available for research under the current policy. Moreover, as Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University told the Special Committee on Aging last year, existing lines are ``contaminated with animal cells, lack genetic diversity, are not disease-specific, and are not adequate for researchers to apply to a wide variety of diseases.'' Limiting researchers to these lines, therefore, places huge and unnecessary roadblocks in the way of possible treatments and cures for a wide range of devastating diseases.

We have learned a lot about stem cells since 2001. For example, scientists have now created methods for growing stem cell lines that are free of animal cells, thus greatly improving their potential for treating and curing disease. They have also created disease-specific stem cell lines. Under the current Federal policy, however, these new and improved stem cell lines are not available to federally funded researchers in the United States. It is time for us to update our stem cell policy to reflect what we have learned so that we can accelerate this important research.

The legislation before us lifts the current restriction so that stem cell lines are eligible for federally funded research, regardless of the date on which they are created. Federal funding, however, would continue to be restricted to stem cells derived from embryos originally created for fertility treatments that are in excess of the clinical need and that otherwise would be discarded. That is the issue before us. Are we going to use these stem cells--these cell clusters which otherwise would be thrown away--for what could be lifesaving and life- enhancing research? That is the issue.

The legislation has other important safeguards that require informed consent of the donors, and it prohibits any financial inducement to donate. Finally, the bill calls upon the NIH to develop strict guidelines to ensure that researchers adhere to clear ethical and moral standards.

As the founder and the cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I am particularly excited about the promise stem cell research holds for an ultimate cure for diabetes. Early research has shown that stem cells have the potential to develop into insulin-producing cells to replace those which have been destroyed in individuals suffering from type 1 diabetes.

During the last Congress, I chaired a hearing in conjunction with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Children's Congress to examine the devastating impact juvenile diabetes has had on too many American children and their families. We heard heartbreaking testimony from children who traveled here to tell us what it is like to live with juvenile diabetes, just how serious it is, and how important it is that we fund the research necessary to find a cure.

One of those was a constituent of mine from Falmouth, ME, Steffi Rothweiler. She told the committee that she could not remember having a normal life without diabetes. She described her parents, who have given up a full night's sleep and their weekends, on guard every hour of every day to make sure Steffi's diabetes is controlled as tightly as possible so that she can stay as healthy as possible. Steffi asks that we do all we can to find a cure for diabetes as quickly as possible. We simply cannot ignore the potential embryonic stem cell research holds for children like Steffi.

I am sensitive to the ethical concerns raised by opponents of this research. But I wish to emphasize once again that the cell clusters which will be used for this research would otherwise be discarded. In my view, the ethical choice is to use them for research that may benefit millions of Americans rather than just discard them as medical waste.

Moreover, what is often ignored in this debate is that embryonic stem cell research is now occurring in the private sector and in other countries outside the purview of the NIH. Therefore,

if we could extend these ethical guidelines that routinely accompany federally funded research, all of us should be for that as a goal.

I wish to quote testimony from Dr. Allen Spiegel, who was, at the time, Director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. He made that very point at our 2005 hearing on juvenile diabetes. He testified that, while NIH routinely worked very closely with the private sector, in the area of stem cell research, ``there is a wall.'' By expanding our current stem cell policy, we can tear down that wall, allowing for more research but ensuring that it is conducted with clear ethical standards.

Now, the other argument we always hear is that we don't need to have this kind of stem cell research because adult stem cells derived from tissue, such as bone marrow, are a sufficient replacement for embryonic stem cells in forwarding this important research.

The fact is, both are promising. But, again, as Dr. Spiegel testified at the hearing that I chaired with regard to diabetes research:

We need to do embryonic stem cell first because it can give

us a better understanding of what causes type 1 diabetes . .

. because it will actually inform our ability to work with

adult stem cells . . . and finally, because, and one cannot

guarantee or promise this, the embryonic stem cells

themselves, if successfully turned into insulin-secreting

beta cells, could be the source of cell therapy.

That is the testimony from the experts.

It would be tragic not to take advantage of this opportunity to accelerate research that can potentially help millions of people suffering from devastating illnesses. I urge our colleagues to join in voting for this important legislation.

Again, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. This is legislation that truly can make a difference to the lives and well-being of so many American families.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just a moment so I can respond to the excellent points that he made, first, I commend Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and others who have worked on this bill for including those clear safeguards. This isn't a case where anyone is going to be selling the left over, unused embryos from in vitro fertilization. In fact, the bill appropriately prohibits any financial inducement, any sort of money changing hands. So that is an important safeguard.

But the Senator put his finger on what I think is the primary ethical choice. The left over cell clusters are going to be discarded. They are going to be discarded. They are discarded every day, every month, every year as medical waste. How much more enhancing it would be to use them for research that could save lives, that could prolong lives, that could improve the quality of life for someone suffering from juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or other devastating diseases.

I believe this bill is a very ethical bill that will help move us forward in the search for better treatments, for better diagnoses, and someday a cure. I cannot believe that we would cut off such promising research when we know it can be done in an ethical way.

I applaud the Senator for his leadership in this area. I hope we will proceed to a very strong bipartisan vote in support of legislation that means so much to the American family.

We do a lot of debate on this Senate floor, but it is rare that we have a debate on an issue that touches so many Americans personally. All of us have family members who have suffered from these devastating diseases, and this offers--does not promise--but offers the potential for research that could really make a difference.

I thank the Senator. I am very happy to join him in this effort.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair advantages to their producers. Time and time again, I hear from manufacturers in my State whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated communities.

Consider this one example that affects my home State. The American residential wood furniture industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 146,600 jobs, or about 22 percent of the workforce, have been lost in the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.8 billion in 2006. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage.

One fine furniture manufacturer in Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, struggled for years to cope with the onslaught of unfair imports from China. Despite the company's quality products and attempts to survive through several rounds of layoffs and participation in the Federal Trade Adjustment for Firms program, Moosehead was not able to keep its doors open in the face of unfair Chinese imports. The company announced its closing on February 8, 2007. This is a tragic development--for this family-owned business, for its skilled employees, and for the community and State.

It is because of the experience of manufacturers such as Moosehead that I reintroduced the Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked closely with me on this legislation. The core provision of this bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from nonmarket economies, such as China.

Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief.

Up until recently, the practice of the Department of Commerce was to accept an antisubsidy petition against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not against a nonmarket economy such as China. As a result, nonmarket countries that subsidize their industries the most heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers, such as China, were exempt from the reach of American countervailing duty laws.

The countervailing duty statute on its face in no way limits the application of the law to any country. There is nothing in the countervailing duty provisions per se, or anywhere else in the statute, that limits the broad language applying countervailing duty remedies to every ``country.'' Unfortunately, the Department's interpretation of this statute for the last two decades has been that it does not apply to nonmarket economies, and this policy was upheld by a 1986 Federal court decision that maintained that Congress needs to clarify the statute on this issue.

The good news is that, on November 22, 2007, the Department of Commerce finally accepted the first countervailing duty petition against a nonmarket economy since the 1986 court decision. The case was filed against China by New Page Corporation, a coated free sheet paper company with operations in Maine, Ohio, and Maryland. Despite its efficient, state-of-the-art mills, skilled and dedicated employees, strong relationships with customers, strategically located mills and distribution facilities and growing markets for its products, New Page had to shut down an entire paper line as a result of unfair foreign competition.

Jim Tyrone, senior vice president of New Page Corporation, testified before the Ways and Means Committee on February 15, 2007, regarding the illegal subsidies that China is providing to its paper industry. Starting in the late 1990s the Government of China targeted its domestic coated paper industry for rapid development. As part of this development plan, the Chinese Government provides low-cost policy loans through government-owned banks. It also provides grants for the development of new paper capacity, and tax breaks based on export performance and domestic equipment purchases. Moreover, Tyrone testified, government banks in China forgave at least $660 million in loans they had provided to China's largest paper producer, Asia Pulp & Paper, when that company declared bankruptcy in 2003.

The result is that in the United States, Chinese coated free sheet market share has increased by an average 75 percent annually over the past four years based on publicly available data, despite having to ship their products thousands of miles to reach the U.S. market. Ironically, and in contrast to U.S. paper producers, China has no natural advantage in the production of paper. It does not have an abundant supply of the requisite inputs, and must import much of the pulp that it uses to make paper. It is only because of illegal subsidization that China can compete in the paper products market in the U.S. and Europe.

According to a 2005 study by the American Forest and Paper Products Association, China is using an array of subsidies to promote the development of timber and pulp production in China. These include government loans and loan subsidies for technology renovation, promotion of foreign investment in state-owned enterprises, and protection of debt-ridden state-owned enterprises that maintain excess or idle production capacity through local government ``soft'' loans and loan forgiveness.

In its 2006 Report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the United States and China, noted:

China has a centralized industrial policy that employs a wide variety of tools to promote favored industries. In particular, China has used a range of subsidies to encourage the manufacture of goods meant for export over the manufacture of goods meant for domestic consumption, and to secure foreign investment in the manufacturing sector.

Similar conclusions are contained in the United States Trade Representative's 2006 Report to Congress, which concludes:

China continues to pursue problematic industrial policies that rely on trade-distorting measures such as local content requirements, import and export restrictions, discriminatory regulations and prohibited subsidies, all of which raise serious WTO concerns.

These practices run counter to China's obligations under its 2001 World Trade Organization accession agreement. In its accession protocol, China explicitly agreed that it would be subject to the subsidy disciplines of other

member countries. In fact, it agreed to specific provisions in article 15 of the protocol which permit WTO countries to use alternative benchmarks for measuring subsidies in China. Yet, unbelievably, the Government of China is arguing in the New Page case that the Department of Commerce is legally prohibited from applying countervailing duty laws to imports from China.

This is exactly why our legislation is still needed, despite the Department of Commerce's acceptance of New Page's case. If U.S. law is clear on the subject of whether anti-subsidy petitions can be filed against nonmarket economies, countries such as China cannot use U.S. courts to dispute that fact. In addition, the Department of Commerce will not be able to summarily reject future antisubsidy petitions against nonmarket economies due to a change in leadership in the department or for political reasons.

I want to point out that this bill also includes a number of new provisions that are designed to strengthen our government's ability to hold our trading partners accountable for their illegal trade practices. The bill makes clear that the United States can use information from third countries and alternative methodologies when calculating China's subsidies. This is consistent with what China itself agreed to in its WTO accession protocol. The bill provides that a determination by the Department of Commerce to revoke a country's status as a nonmarket economy under U.S. antidumping law must be approved by Congress. Finally, the bill requires the U.S. International Trade Commission to conduct a study regarding how the People's Republic of China uses government intervention to promote investment, employment, and exports.

Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No State understands this more than my home State of Maine. According to the United States Department of Labor, 10,400 manufacturing jobs in Maine have been lost since 2001, a 14.8 percent decline. This is why organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed our proposal to extend U.S. countervailing duty laws to nonmarket economies.

The stopping overseas subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has a broad range of support across many industries and geographical areas. A companion bill has been introduced in the House by Representatives by Artur Davis of Alabama and Phil English of Pennsylvania.

U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the playing field by allowing antisubsidy petitions to be brought against nonmarket economies in addition to market economies.

Some countries, such as China, want to have all the benefits of engaging in international trading institutions and systems yet continue to cheat on the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

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

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

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 480, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the amendment that I have proposed, with my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Smith, would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for the expansion of an existing tax credit for schoolteachers and other educators who buy supplies for their classroom. The reserve fund that our amendment creates would allow for an increase in the current $250 deduction to $400, and it would make it permanent. This tax deduction is available to educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to improve the educational experience of their students.

The amendment would also allow this above-the-line tax deduction to be claimed for expenses related to professional development.

This amendment builds upon a $250 tax deduction in the current law that Senator Warner and I authored in 2001. It became law as part of the tax relief package that passed that year. This tax relief was later extended through the end of this year, and I would suggest that there is no reason for us to have the uncertainty about the continuation of this valuable tax deduction. We should move to make it permanent.

Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience for their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax incentive to thank them for their commitment and their hard work. So often teachers across this country, and certainly in the State of Maine, earn modest salaries. Yet they dig deep into their own pockets to spend money to improve the classroom experience of their students.

A survey by the National Education Association found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom materials. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. In fact, a survey conducted by the National School Supply and Equipment Association has found that educators spend, on average, $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus an additional $926 for instructional materials on top of that; in other words, a total of $1,700 out of their own pockets.

I have spoken with literally dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me that they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine. In fact, I visited approximately 160 schools during the past 10 years, and I have seen firsthand the dedication of our schoolteachers to their students. At virtually every school that I have visited, teachers are spending their own money to benefit their students.

Year after year, teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, construction paper, stamps, ink pads, just about anything you can think of. Let me give a couple of examples. There are two elementary school teachers in Augusta, ME, Anita Hopkins and Kathy Toothacher, who purchased books for their students so they could have a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They have also purchased special prizes to give to their students as positive reinforcement. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends between $800 and $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning more enjoyable and to create

a more stimulating classroom environment.

In addition to increasing the amount of this deduction, I think we should also expand it so that it can be used by educators who are paying for their own professional development. We hear a lot of discussion about the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act and about the need for highly qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet in towns in my State, and I expect throughout the country, school budgets are often very tight and money for professional development is often very small or even nonexistent.

That is why I think we should allow this tax deduction to also be claimed when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket. In my view, it is the students who are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills, or perhaps teach them a more innovative way to teach the material and present it to their students.

Studies have consistently shown that other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well-qualified teacher. I know from talking to educators across Maine that they are eager to take advantage of professional development opportunities in order to make an even more positive impact on their students.

The teacher tax relief that we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I am very proud, along with my colleague, Senator Warner, to have authored that law. Today, we can set the stage for making that deduction permanent, for expanding it to include professional development, and to increase it to $400 to more accurately reflect what educators really spend in the classroom.

This amendment is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices that teachers make each and every day to benefit children across America. I am very pleased that the National Education Association has endorsed this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the NEA supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I hope the managers of the bill might be willing to act on this amendment shortly.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the way I have drafted the amendment is to use a technique that has been commonly used in the budget resolution of creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund. That means the committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee in this case, would be required to come up with an offset for the cost to avoid an impact on the budget. I do not have a cost estimate from CBO yet on the proposal. It is not an expensive tax incentive, but we have followed the wisdom and advice of the leaders of the Budget Committee by drafting it in such a way that it would not have a budget impact.

Madam President, I would say to the chairman of the Budget Committee that we have requested an estimate, but we have not yet received one. Because of that uncertainty, we did go the route of the deficit-neutral reserve fund so that, regardless of the cost, it would be offset by the decisions made by the Finance Committee.

Madam President, I do not.

Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on this issue. I think it is a modest approach that can make a real difference to the thousands of teachers across this country who dig deep into their own pockets in order to enrich the classroom experience for their students. It is a modest but appropriate way for us to recognize their financial sacrifice. I hope the two managers of the bill will be able to clear the amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will expand the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire County so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine.

The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the federal government and rural communities so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax incentives to encourage economic growth.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.

In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a continued successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help build its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefitting from this program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the County in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the County will not be left behind in the quest for economic prosperity. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of Empowerment Zone benefits.

Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. In fact, we were successful in getting this legislation passed in the Senate by attaching it to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this language was removed during conference negotiations with the House. Senator Snowe and I remain committed to bringing the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to all of Aroostook County's residents and will work to pass this legislation in both chambers during this Congress.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will expand the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire County so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine.

The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the federal government and rural communities so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax incentives to encourage economic growth.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.

In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a continued successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help build its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefitting from this program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the County in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the County will not be left behind in the quest for economic prosperity. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of Empowerment Zone benefits.

Senator Snowe and I introduced this legislation in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. In fact, we were successful in getting this legislation passed in the Senate by attaching it to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this language was removed during conference negotiations with the House. Senator Snowe and I remain committed to bringing the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to all of Aroostook County's residents and will work to pass this legislation in both chambers during this Congress.

Mr. President, I think we have votes that are scheduled at 11:45.

Perhaps the Presiding Officer could review----