Floor Statements

Mr. President, is the floor open to debate on the underlying bill, or would the Presiding Officer advise me as to the pending business?

I thank the Chair.

I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation provides essential resources to our troops, whether they are engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in training and service at home, or in deployments in other countries around the world. I thank my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senators Warner and Levin, for putting together an excellent bill and also for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

Through the leadership of Chairman Warner and Senator Talent, the Seapower Subcommittee chairman, the legislation before us strengthens our Nation's shipbuilding program by authorizing construction of eight new ships and by providing $12.1 billion in shipbuilding moneys, an increase of $1.5 billion above the President's request. This legislation wisely focuses on the declining size of the Navy fleet and takes significant strides toward strengthening the shipbuilding program. It also provides some much needed stability for the industrial base that will be called upon to build and sustain the current force and the future fleet.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen, has put forward a 313- ship long-range Navy shipbuilding plan that is a genuine effort to address longstanding congressional concerns that Navy shipbuilding has been inadequately funded and has lacked stability from year to year. Past instability has made it difficult for shipbuilders to plan their businesses. That degree of instability, coupled with less-than-economic production rates, has contributed to significant cost growth in naval shipbuilding programs. The CNO's plan, combined with more robust funding from Congress, will begin to reverse the dangerous decline in Navy shipbuilding.

I am pleased that this bill provides full funding for the DD(X) destroyer program, including split funding of the first two ships' detailed design and construction. The DD(X) is so important to our future national security. This ship will have high-tech capabilities that currently do not exist on the Navy's surface combatants. These capabilities include far greater offensive and precision firepower, advanced stealth technologies, numerous engineering and technological innovations that will allow for reduced crew size and thus help to reduce the lifecycle cost of the ship and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems such as the electromagnetic rail gun.

Constructing the first two DD(X)s in 2007 and 2008 will contribute to the sustainment of our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding workforces, including the employees at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am very proud of these highly skilled workers and their contributions to our Nation's defense. Split funding between the first two DD(X) ships is a key component of the CNO's 313-ship plan and will make an important contribution to stabilizing a critical naval shipbuilding program, allowing for a more steady plan for the fragile dual-source service combatant shipbuilding industrial base, and achieving long-term program affordability through stability and other ongoing Navy and industry initiatives.

Split funding for the DD(X) also supports cost-effective construction activities at both of our shipbuilding yards that concentrate on surface combatants. That will help stabilize and preserve two shipyards in order to meet future Navy requirements. If there were ever any doubt about the need to have two shipyards capable of constructing surface combatants, surely those doubts were put to rest by the extensive damage that Hurricane Katrina caused at the Ingalls Shipyard. We simply cannot afford to have only one shipyard that is capable of responding to the needs of our Navy for capable advanced surface combatants. That is why it is so critical that our procurement strategies recognize that and are developed and designed to sustain both yards.

In doing so, we are helping the Navy meet its needs. Our naval fleet has been declining for far too many years. This bill will take a significant step toward stability and meeting the requirements that exist.

The high priority placed on the DD(X) program in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill stands in stark contrast to the House Defense authorization bill that recommends full funding for the procurement of only one DD(X) and does not adopt the critical split funding approach. Failure to support the budget for two DD(X)s would exacerbate the production gap facing BIW in Maine and would pose a significant risk to the DD(X) program that the CNO has so strongly endorsed and that the committee has consistently supported. Navy officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that authorizing only one DD(X) in fiscal year 2007 would result in the following negative consequences.

First, it would cause significant program delay and disruption. Second, it would increase program costs. Third, it would have a negative impact on the shipbuilder industrial base. Fourth, it would defer the planned competitive contract awards from 2009 until at least 2011. And, finally, it would force the Navy into a lead-follow scenario that would require an additional $450 million in shipbuilding funds. Approval of split funding is, therefore, critical to moving the DD(X) program forward. It strives to keep both DD(X) shipbuilders on an equal footing during this key transitional period.

Furthermore, the House version of the DOD authorization bill recommends reducing the overall DD(X) program to only two ships, a significant decrease from the Navy's requirement for a minimum of seven DD(X)s as part of the 313-ship plan. At one point a couple of years ago, the Navy said it actually needs 12 DD(X)s. I still believe the military requirements suggest that that is the accurate number. But for the House committee to slash the number of ships under this program to two would seriously jeopardize our national security. I hope we will proceed with the Senate's much better plan to proceed with a minimum of seven DD(X) ships.

I am also pleased that the committee agreed to my request for $25 million in funding to accomplish planning and engineering for the modernization of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer class. This program, which has been in effect in the past few years, is already showing significant promise of significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the technology that is being developed for the destroyer of the 21st century, the DD(X), and backfitting the DDG. This has the potential, for example, to reduce crew size on the retrofitted DDGs by about 30 to 40 sailors. That certainly is significant as well.

The Senate's fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other important defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security. For example, it includes additional funding for the Mark V fast patrol boat that is being developed at a shipyard in Maine, in conjunction with the University of Maine. It also provides $2 million to the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence in order to continue the design and testing of lightweight ballistic panel tent inserts made from composite materials. These potentially lifesaving panels protect our troops from insurgent attacks when they are sheltered in temporary dining or sleeping facilities in hostile environments. This is particularly important to the State of Maine because we lost National Guardsmen in Iraq who were eating in an unprotected mess tent. Had we had those composite ballistic inserts for this tent, truly, I believe, lives and injuries would have been saved and avoided.

The legislation also authorizes $9.6 million for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Drydock Waterfront Support Facility in Kittery, ME. This will replace the current submarine support center that is more than 60 years old and poorly designed for current use.

This legislation also provides much needed funds for other national priorities. The legislation authorizes incentive payments for civilian health care providers who provide services to TRICARE beneficiaries in rural and medically underserved areas. I know that is a concern of the Presiding Officer as well. Any of us who represent rural States realize how difficult it is to ensure an adequate supply of health care providers.

It also follows on the Senate's action earlier this year by repealing provisions of the Survivor Benefit Plan that require the offset of military retirement annuity payments by amounts received for dependency and indemnity compensation. It authorizes acceleration of the effective date of the paid-up provision from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2006, for retirees who reach age 70 and have paid premiums for 30 years.

Finally, let me again, since the distinguished chairman is now in the Chamber, commend him for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to the men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. We are very fortunate to have such a talented and committed chairman and ranking minority member as we do on this committee. I am very proud to be a member. I offer my full support to the important legislation before us.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to a fellow in my office, Michelle Aykol, for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my strong support and endorsement of the confirmation of Ambassador Susan Schwab as U.S. Trade Representative. During her long career in public service, Ambassador Schwab has dedicated herself to advocating for the best interests of the United States in the global economy. I was delighted when I learned that the President had nominated her for the position of U.S. Trade Representative, a position for which she is ideally suited.

Throughout the 1980s, Ambassador Schwab was as a trade policy specialist and then legislative director for Senator John C. Danforth, playing a major role in numerous U.S. trade policy initiatives, including landmark trade legislation that Congress enacted in 1984 and 1988. While serving on the staff of Senator William S. Cohen and as staff director of the Subcommittee on Government Oversight, I worked closely with Ambassador Schwab on a number of trade issues affecting Maine and its industries.

In particular, Ambassador Schwab worked with our staff to support Maine's shoe industry and its workers during the industry's massive dislocations in the 1980s. She was instrumental in helping us develop legislation to address the industry's dire situation in those years, including critical improvements to antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard provisions. She also worked closely with our staff to improve market access for Maine agricultural goods in foreign markets.

Ambassador Schwab's professional and personal record of service will enable her to effectively represent U.S. interests around the world. She will make an outstanding U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. Let me begin my remarks by stating my position on the issues raised by this amendment.

First, it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Second, principles of federalism dictate that the responsibility to define marriage belongs to the States. Third, the proper role of the Federal Government is to ensure that each State can exercise that right and responsibility by preventing, as the Defense of Marriage Act does, one State from imposing its view on others.

The constitutional amendment under consideration would potentially affect two types of relationships that are fundamental to our society. The first is the union between a man and a woman. The second is the compact between the States and the Federal Government. In our zeal to protect the former, we must not do unnecessary harm to the latter, as it is the bedrock principle of our country's highly successful Federal system.

When the Senate considered this amendment in July 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had only recently issued its 4-to-3 decision in the Goodridge case. I urged that we should not overreact to the single decision of a State court and rush to amend the Constitution in such a way as to strip away from our States a power they have exercised, wisely for the most part, for more than 200 years. I also opposed efforts to amend the Constitution without evidence suggesting that States could not be trusted to make decisions in this area for themselves.

During the period since our last debate, many States have taken steps to define marriage within their borders. Currently, 45 States have enacted laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage. Nineteen States have State constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman, with 15 States passing State constitutional amendments since our last debate. Twenty-six other States, including Maine, have statutes limiting marriage in some manner. Maine law explicitly states that ``[p]ersons of the same sex may not contract marriage,'' and further provides that Maine will not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would violate the legal requirements in Maine. Thus, even if lawfully performed in another State, a same-sex marriage will not be valid in Maine.

Voters in at least seven States will consider State constitutional amendments in 2006 and another four State legislatures are considering sending constitutional amendments to voters in 2006 or 2008. And it is still the case, as it was 2 years ago, that no State law has been enacted to allow same-sex couples to marry. Nor has a popular referendum to that effect passed in any State.

I respect the right of the people of Maine and the citizens of other States to define marriage within their boundaries. Were I a member of the Maine Legislature, I would vote in favor of a law limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman.

This does not mean that Congress can play no role in this area. To the contrary, Congress has two very important roles. The first is to protect the right of each State to define marriage within its own borders, and the second is to define marriage for Federal purposes.

To its credit, Congress did both of these when it enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. Signed into law by President Clinton, DOMA enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress, passing by a margin of 85 to 14 in the Senate and 342 to 67 in the House. The statute grants individual States autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriages and other unions within their borders, and ensures that no State can compel another to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Of equal importance, DOMA defines marriage for Federal purposes as ``the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' I strongly endorse both of the principles codified by DOMA.

Even though DOMA has not been successfully challenged during the nearly 10 years since its enactment, many supporters of the marriage amendment point to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas as presaging DOMA's ultimate demise on constitutional grounds. They argue that DOMA's vulnerability necessitates approving the amendment under consideration.

I reject that argument. The conclusion that DOMA is inevitably destined to die a constitutional death is inconsistent with language in the Lawrence decision. In striking down a Texas statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between consenting adult homosexuals, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy was careful to note that the case before the Court ``does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.''

In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor was even more explicit when she observed that the invalidation of the Texas statute ``does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail. . . . Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted State interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.'' These statements persuade me that the Supreme Court is, in fact, unlikely to strike down DOMA. In fact, in August 2004, a Federal bankruptcy court in Washington State ruled to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA, finding that there was no fundamental constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex.

Let me end where I began. This amendment is not just about relationships between men and women but also about the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. I would not let a one- vote majority opinion of a single State court lead us to ascribe to Washington a power that rightfully belongs to the States. To the contrary, our role should be to safeguard the ability of each State to exercise that power within its own borders.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and Senator Chafee in introducing this joint resolution, which would affirm the Senate's commitment to recognize the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact, IEMAC. The purpose of IEMAC is to provide mutual assistance among the States of the Northeastern United States and the Provinces of eastern Canada for responding to any type of disaster, whether arising from natural or manmade causes.

A number of recent disasters and emergencies have necessitated mutual aid and assistance among the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian Provinces. For example, both the January 1998 ice storm and the August 2003 blackout left millions of people without electrical power, knocked out public water supplies and other essential services, and caused billions of dollars in property damage or business losses. In the past quarter century alone, there have been more than 100 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies in the Northeast, or, on average, about four per year. Many of these events required State and Provincial emergency management organizations to request out-of- jurisdiction mutual assistance to deal with the emergency.

The importance of mutual assistance was made clear by Hurricane Katrina, in which 44 States and the District of

Columbia received presidential emergency declarations. This was the largest number of declarations ever made for a single disaster in FEMA history. Most of these declarations were not the result of States receiving direct damage from the storm but rather because they reached out to assist the devastated States through the nationwide Emergency Management Assistance Compact, EMAC, sending personnel, equipment and supplies into the stricken areas. In addition, numerous host States opened shelters to assist hurricane evacuees.

The genesis of IEMAC was the 1998 ice storm. The worst ice storm in our region's history demolished power lines from Quebec, through upstate New York, across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. As many as 4 million people were without electricity, some 700,000 people for as long as 3 weeks, and damage topped $6 billion.

The following June, the New England Governors Conference and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed Resolution No. 23-5 to adopt an International Emergency Management Assistance Agreement. The resulting memorandum of understanding was adopted by the conference in July 2000. In October of 2004, the memorandum of understanding was the renamed International Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Governors and Premiers established the International Emergency-Management Group, IEMG, to implement the compact and to work closely developing plans to train and exercise for disasters and emergencies that could affect the Northeastern States and Provinces. The Management Group meets regularly and has recently developed a draft operational manual to fully implement the compact, which is slated to be approved at the IEMG meeting in Quebec this month.

The members of the compact are the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Other States and Provinces may join the compact in the future.

IEMAC provides form and structure to international mutual aid between the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian Provinces. It addresses such issues as liability, payment, and credentialing before the emergency occurs, which allows for expedited deployment of resources and personnel in time of emergency. Working out the myriad legal and technical details in advance is especially important when resources and personnel must cross international boundaries.

The value of the compact already has been demonstrated. When Hurricane Juan slammed into Nova Scotia in late September of 2003, partners in the existing memorandum of understanding provided quick and substantial aid to the stricken province. When Nova Scotia, still recovering from the hurricane, was hit again just a few months later by ``White Juan,'' a powerful blizzard, effective mutual aid again alleviated the suffering.

The compact was formed in the aftermath of a powerful ice storm, but the terrorist attacks of 9/11 amplified its importance. The Northeastern United States and eastern Canada are home to major population centers, vast industrial facilities, major cargo ports, and nuclear power plants--all potential terrorist targets. In the event of an attack, tighter border security would be both inevitable and necessary, and the prearrangements made through the compact would be invaluable.

The role of the compact is ever expanding. There are a multitude of threats facing the Northeast States and eastern Canadian Provinces today, and the close working relationship of the member jurisdictions fosters a cooperative environment and creates a strong partnership. These strong bonds contribute to the goals of a more secure region and an effective response capability when a disaster or emergency does occur.

As has been seen numerous times in the past, disasters know no boundaries--municipal, State, provincial or international. I ask you to join me in adopting the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact so that in a time of disaster the boundaries that separate jurisdictions are not barriers to cooperation.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and Senator Chafee in introducing this joint resolution, which would affirm the Senate's commitment to recognize the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact, IEMAC. The purpose of IEMAC is to provide mutual assistance among the States of the Northeastern United States and the Provinces of eastern Canada for responding to any type of disaster, whether arising from natural or manmade causes.

A number of recent disasters and emergencies have necessitated mutual aid and assistance among the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian Provinces. For example, both the January 1998 ice storm and the August 2003 blackout left millions of people without electrical power, knocked out public water supplies and other essential services, and caused billions of dollars in property damage or business losses. In the past quarter century alone, there have been more than 100 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies in the Northeast, or, on average, about four per year. Many of these events required State and Provincial emergency management organizations to request out-of- jurisdiction mutual assistance to deal with the emergency.

The importance of mutual assistance was made clear by Hurricane Katrina, in which 44 States and the District of

Columbia received presidential emergency declarations. This was the largest number of declarations ever made for a single disaster in FEMA history. Most of these declarations were not the result of States receiving direct damage from the storm but rather because they reached out to assist the devastated States through the nationwide Emergency Management Assistance Compact, EMAC, sending personnel, equipment and supplies into the stricken areas. In addition, numerous host States opened shelters to assist hurricane evacuees.

The genesis of IEMAC was the 1998 ice storm. The worst ice storm in our region's history demolished power lines from Quebec, through upstate New York, across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. As many as 4 million people were without electricity, some 700,000 people for as long as 3 weeks, and damage topped $6 billion.

The following June, the New England Governors Conference and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed Resolution No. 23-5 to adopt an International Emergency Management Assistance Agreement. The resulting memorandum of understanding was adopted by the conference in July 2000. In October of 2004, the memorandum of understanding was the renamed International Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Governors and Premiers established the International Emergency-Management Group, IEMG, to implement the compact and to work closely developing plans to train and exercise for disasters and emergencies that could affect the Northeastern States and Provinces. The Management Group meets regularly and has recently developed a draft operational manual to fully implement the compact, which is slated to be approved at the IEMG meeting in Quebec this month.

The members of the compact are the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Other States and Provinces may join the compact in the future.

IEMAC provides form and structure to international mutual aid between the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian Provinces. It addresses such issues as liability, payment, and credentialing before the emergency occurs, which allows for expedited deployment of resources and personnel in time of emergency. Working out the myriad legal and technical details in advance is especially important when resources and personnel must cross international boundaries.

The value of the compact already has been demonstrated. When Hurricane Juan slammed into Nova Scotia in late September of 2003, partners in the existing memorandum of understanding provided quick and substantial aid to the stricken province. When Nova Scotia, still recovering from the hurricane, was hit again just a few months later by ``White Juan,'' a powerful blizzard, effective mutual aid again alleviated the suffering.

The compact was formed in the aftermath of a powerful ice storm, but the terrorist attacks of 9/11 amplified its importance. The Northeastern United States and eastern Canada are home to major population centers, vast industrial facilities, major cargo ports, and nuclear power plants--all potential terrorist targets. In the event of an attack, tighter border security would be both inevitable and necessary, and the prearrangements made through the compact would be invaluable.

The role of the compact is ever expanding. There are a multitude of threats facing the Northeast States and eastern Canadian Provinces today, and the close working relationship of the member jurisdictions fosters a cooperative environment and creates a strong partnership. These strong bonds contribute to the goals of a more secure region and an effective response capability when a disaster or emergency does occur.

As has been seen numerous times in the past, disasters know no boundaries--municipal, State, provincial or international. I ask you to join me in adopting the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact so that in a time of disaster the boundaries that separate jurisdictions are not barriers to cooperation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a provision in S. 2611 that will level the playing field for minor league sports teams that depend on getting the best athletic talent. Under current law, minor league players who have to use the H-2B visa category face severe visa shortages, while Major League players qualify automatically for plentiful P-1 visas. This unfair discrepancy in the law needs to be remedied, and my amendment, which was accepted by the Judiciary Committee and is now in the underlying bill, provides a commonsense solution.

By way of background, H-2B visas are intended for use by industries facing seasonal demands for labor, such as the hospitality and agricultural industries. What many people do not know is that, in addition to loggers, hotel and restaurant employees, and many other types of seasonal workers, the H-2B visa category is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes who are recruited by U.S. teams.

A chronic H-2B visa shortage over the last few years has posed challenges for all industries using the H-2B visa category. In both fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the 66,000 visa cap was met early in the year. While we were successful last year in crafting a temporary 2-year fix for the H-2B shortage, this fix will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. I commend my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for offering an amendment to this bill that would extend the current exemption of returning H-2B workers until 2009.

However, solving this problem goes beyond fixing the H-2B visa cap. Minor league players simply do not belong in the same visa category as seasonal workers. There is no reason why Major League players can qualify automatically for P-1 visas, which are granted to talented athletes, artists, and entertainers, while minor league players cannot. My amendment would remedy this unfair situation.

The problem of requiring minor league athletes to use the H-2B visa category has posed a particular challenge to those of us in Maine who enjoy cheering on our sports teams. The MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team that plays its games in Lewiston, ME, has faced tremendous difficulties obtaining the H-2B visas necessary for the majority of its players to come to the United States to play in the team's first home games.

Last year, due to uncertainty surrounding the availability of H-2B visas at the end of the fiscal year, the team had to reschedule its season home opener and cancel several early season games. This forced the team to schedule make-up games for those normally

played in September. The problems created by the visa situation creates an unnecessary hardship for this team, in addition to threatening the revenue the team generates for the city of Lewiston and businesses in the surrounding area.

The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, is another of the many teams that relies on H-2B visas to bring some of its most skilled players to the United States. Thousands of fans come each year to see this team, and others like it across the country, play one of America's favorite sports. Due to the shortage of H-2B visas, however, Major League Baseball reports that, in 2004 and early 2005, more than 350 talented young, foreign baseball players were prevented from coming to the U.S. to play for minor league teams. These teams have been a traditional proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the major leagues and players often move from these teams to major league rosters.

The inclusion of these highly skilled athletes in the H-2B visa category seems particularly unusual when you consider that major league athletes are permitted to use an entirely different non-immigrant visa category--the P-1 visa. This visa is available to athletes who are deemed by the Citizenship and Immigration Services to perform at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Arguably, any foreign athlete whose achievements have earned him a contract with an American team would meet this definition.

CIS, however, has interpreted this category to exclude minor and amateur league athletes. Instead, the P-1 visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to major league sports. Unfortunately, this creates something of a catch-22 for minor league athletes--if an H-2B visa shortage means that promising athletes are unable to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the minor leagues, they are far less likely to ever earn the major league contract currently required to obtain a P-1 visa.

A simple, commonsense solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. Major League Baseball strongly supports the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional minor league baseball players. In correspondence to me, the league has pointed out that, by making P-1 visas available to this group of athletes, teams would be able to make player development decisions based on the talent of its players, without being constrained by visa quotas. The P-1 category, the league believes, is appropriate for minor league players because these are the players that Major League clubs have selected as some of the best baseball prospects in the world.

There is no question that Americans are passionate about sports. We have high expectations for our teams, and demand only the best from our athletes. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill, rather than visa availability. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-2B visa category making more of those visas available to the industries that need them.

I am pleased that this important provision is included in S. 2611, and I thank the Judiciary Committee for their willingness to incorporate it into the underlying bill.

I ask unanimous consent that letters endorsing my amendment from the Lewiston MAINEiacs Hockey Club and Major League Baseball be printed in the Record.

There: being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, the Senate is now considering H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report. This bill contains several important tax relief provisions, including relief from the alternative minimum tax, extended expensing provisions for small businesses, and a 2-year extension of the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains. I will be voting for this bill in order to block tax increases that would be harmful to our economy and to our citizens.

According to the latest data that I have seen, more than 100 million American taxpayers benefit from the various tax reductions that we have passed since 2001. In Maine, 100,000 taxpayers have benefited from the lower capital gains and dividends tax rate, and about 25,500 Maine taxpayers have benefited from AMT relief.

The 5-year cost of this reconciliation package is just under $70 billion. Of this amount, nearly half--$33.4 billion will go to provide an additional year of relief from the alternative minimum tax. The AMT was originally enacted to ensure that all taxpayers, especially high- income taxpayers, paid at least a minimum amount of Federal taxes. But the AMT is not indexed for inflation, and because of this flaw, each year a larger number of middle-income Americans find themselves subject to this ``stealth tax.'' In fact, without the relief provided in this bill, the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will increase to 20 million in 2006, up from just 3 million in 2004.

I believe it is essential to protect middle-income families from the AMT ``stealth tax.'' I also believe that the 15 percent capital gains and dividends tax rates have proven their effectiveness and ought to be extended.

When I voted to support lower capital gains and dividends taxes in 2003, my hope was that this tax policy would help lift our economy out of recession and restore the healthy growth we need to create good jobs and opportunity for Americans. Since that tax relief became law, our economy has grown at nearly 4 percent per year, and over 5 million new jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.7 percent--beneath the average of the past three decades.

I am aware of the ongoing debate among economists over whether, and to what extent, tax cuts can ``pay for themselves.'' Whatever one thinks of that debate, I cannot help but note how far off the estimated cost of this tax relief was. The year before this tax relief became law, the Federal Government received $49 billion in revenues through the capital gains tax--at the 20 percent rate. The Joint Tax Committee predicted that reducing the rate to 15 percent would reduce revenues by $3 billion from 2003 to 2005. But, in fact, capital gains tax revenues jumped instead--to $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion last year--all paid at the lower 15 percent rate.

To me, the vote on this bill is not about settling a debate among economists. My focus is on finding the right tax policy to help keep our economy healthy, and growing. It is only with strong economic growth that our Nation will be able to meet the needs we currently face--needs that will only become more urgent as our society ages.

Many in this Chamber, and many of my constituents, are concerned about our growing national debt. I share this concern. That is why I have been a consistent supporter of the pay-go rules throughout my tenure in the Senate. But I continue to be struck by the difference that even a small change in our economy's growth rate can make to the deficit and to the revenues we need to support critical social programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a change of just one tenth of 1 percent in the GDP growth rate over a 10-year period would change revenues by $224 billion and spending by $48 billion, for a total net impact of $272 billion on the deficit.

The actual growth rate we have experienced since 2003 has been higher by at least two-tenths of 1 percent than CBO predicted before the 15 percent tax rate was enacted. In light of the fact that CBO estimates that a 0.1 percent change can have a net impact of $272 billion on the deficit, it is so important to maintain policies that maintain a healthy growth rate.

For all of these reasons, I will be supporting the tax reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, the Senate has spent much of this week debating S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006. I commend my good friend and colleague from Wyoming for all of his hard work on this legislation, which is intended to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to join together to purchase association-based small business health plans. Despite my support for the goal of this bill, I think its approach is fundamentally flawed. Let me explain my concerns.

One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 percent of uninsured workers either work for a small firm or are self-employed. Taking a look at the problems faced by small businesses is, therefore, a good place to start as we attempt to reduce the numbers of uninsured.

Small businesses want to provide quality health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. So I am totally in agreement with the underlying goal of this legislation, which is to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and their employees. To that end, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to help employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable and by providing grants to States to assist with the development and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives to increase the clout of small businesses in their negotiations with insurers.

I do, however, have a number of very real concerns about S. 1955, as it was reported out of the Senate HELP Committee.

First, the legislation preempts the States' traditional authority to regulate insurance and allows not just small business health plans but all health insurers to exclude important benefits like cancer screenings, mental health coverage, and diabetes care that currently are guaranteed under many State laws.

States have had the primary responsibility for the regulation of health insurance since the 1940s, and based on my experience in overseeing the Maine Bureau of Insurance for five years, I believe that States have generally done a good job of responding to the needs and concerns of their citizens.

As the founder and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I also am all too aware of the tremendous emotional and economic toll that this devastating disease takes on an estimated 21 million Americans and their families. I am particularly concerned that the bill would preempt as many as 46 State laws guaranteeing coverage for the medications, equipment, services, and supplies that people with diabetes need to manage their disease and prevent costly and potentially deadly complications.

This simply is penny wise and pound foolish. Diabetes currently costs our Nation more than $132 billion annually. Eighty percent of those costs are due to the complications associated with diabetes-- complications that, absent a cure, can only be prevented through prevention and proper management of the disease. If cloture is invoked, I will be offering an amendment with Senators Bingaman and Domenici to preserve State laws requiring coverage for comprehensive diabetes care. Both the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation have endorsed our amendment.

I am also concerned that the bill would preempt State rating rules and establish a new national standard. Proponents of the legislation contend that the application of this new national standard may not cause much disruption in many states. In Maine, however, which uses modified community rating, it could alter the market substantially.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that one-quarter of all small businesses will actually pay higher premiums if this bill is passed. It is therefore likely that many small employers in Maine--particularly those with an older workforce--will wind up paying more, and in some cases substantially more, under this bill.

This bill is no panacea, even for those small employers who will see savings. The CBO estimates that health care premiums will only average about 2 to 3 percent lower if S. 1955 is passed. Many small business owners have been told that the bill will cut their costs by from 12 to 20 percent. Even those employers who do see savings are likely to be disappointed that they are not as great as they had been led to believe.

Finally, I am concerned that the bill, as reported by the committee, could allow health plans to exclude a class of health care providers, solely on the basis of their license or certification, restricting patients' access to qualified health professionals. This is a particularly important issue in rural areas like Maine, where there may not be a sufficient supply of physicians to provide the care that the health plan has promised to cover.

For example, virtually all health plans cover medically necessary primary care services. Many rural Americans use a physician assistant or nurse practitioner as their primary care provider because there simply isn't an adequate supply of physicians where they live. In these areas, if a plan only covers primary care services offered by a physician, patients will either have to drive great distances to receive the care they need or pay out of pocket for services that are supposed to be covered benefits.

If cloture is invoked, I will be offering an amendment to maintain the application of all existing State laws prohibiting health insurers from discriminating against health providers who are acting within their scope of practice under State law, solely on the basis of their license or certification.

Mr. President, I do plan to vote for cloture. Congress should be taking action to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses, and I believe that this debate should go forward.

I do not, however, believe that we need to preempt the good work that States have done in the area of patient's rights and protections in order to help our small businesses. I would, therefore, oppose the current bill on final passage unless it is substantially changed.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a change to the Stafford Act that, in some cases, could facilitate recovery from natural disasters.

Governments on the local, State and Federal level have a primary and critical responsibility when it comes to responding to natural disasters. A wide variety of private organizations also play an important role in the recovery process that complements and facilitates public response efforts. In the case of private utility companies, their work to restore normal telecommunications, power, and other services in a disaster area can greatly speed the recovery process.

Our investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina has shown that a number of utility companies were hampered in their recovery efforts by shortages of fuel, transportation, equipment, and other resources in the afflicted areas. In some cases, we also found that FEMA had supplies of scarce resources, received requests to share those resources but lacked the legal authority to do so.

What this bill would do is provide FEMA authority to share its resources during a disaster--at FEMA's discretion and for full compensation. This would allow FEMA--in those cases where it has sufficient resources to share--to advance the recovery process in the wake of a disaster at no expense to the Government.

Mr. President, I am introducing this commonsense legislation because it will incrementally improve our capacity to respond to disasters without additional costs to the Government. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a change to the Stafford Act that, in some cases, could facilitate recovery from natural disasters.

Governments on the local, State and Federal level have a primary and critical responsibility when it comes to responding to natural disasters. A wide variety of private organizations also play an important role in the recovery process that complements and facilitates public response efforts. In the case of private utility companies, their work to restore normal telecommunications, power, and other services in a disaster area can greatly speed the recovery process.

Our investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina has shown that a number of utility companies were hampered in their recovery efforts by shortages of fuel, transportation, equipment, and other resources in the afflicted areas. In some cases, we also found that FEMA had supplies of scarce resources, received requests to share those resources but lacked the legal authority to do so.

What this bill would do is provide FEMA authority to share its resources during a disaster--at FEMA's discretion and for full compensation. This would allow FEMA--in those cases where it has sufficient resources to share--to advance the recovery process in the wake of a disaster at no expense to the Government.

Mr. President, I am introducing this commonsense legislation because it will incrementally improve our capacity to respond to disasters without additional costs to the Government. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. President, I rise today to correct the record regarding conservation funding I secured last year under the Forest Legacy Program.

During debate on the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations Act, I worked with Senator Olympia Snowe to obtain $4.5 million to protect 37,000 acres of forested land in my home state of Maine. I was very pleased that these crucial resources were allocated for this section of the 100-mile wilderness, which in addition to its natural beauty provides critical habitat to a variety of species, providing vital breeding, feeding, and resting grounds.

The site of a long-deserted factory, Katahdin Ironworks, marks the gateway to this treasured expanse of wooded land. It was from this notable Piscataquis County landmark that project supporters generated the name ``Katahdin Ironworks Forest Legacy Program'' to refer to this effort to protect and preserve this stretch of forest. As the old adage goes, so much is in a name. And this name has sparked unfounded criticism from colleagues and outside interest groups who have jumped to the assumption that funding secured for this project was to be utilized for the upkeep of an abandoned building. Today, I wish to set the record straight and assure my fellow Senators and other interested parties that this highly competitive program funding will be used to ensure the survival of thousands of acres of precious forest.

There are many things that make America great, but it is our commitment to safeguarding our open spaces and wooded lands that make us unique as an industrialized Nation. Sadly, the growing trend of urban sprawl, along with the increased pressure to exploit our natural resources, has placed the survival of these invaluable lands in jeopardy. General agreement that we must undertake conservation efforts to ensure the preservation of these precious natural landscapes for future generations has lead to the development of conservation programs like Forest Legacy. This initiative has afforded us a needed mechanism to facilitate the survival of these lands. Supported by the Wilderness Society, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and other respected environmental protection groups, the Forest Legacy Program enjoys a wide range of support among organizations committed to natural preservation causes.

Sadly, limited resources preclude our ability to defend all endangered wilderness areas through this program, and it thus remains appropriately competitive. For this reason, I was extremely

pleased that both the President's budget and the Senate Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of maintaining this pristine wilderness in my home state, and included funding to protect it through tight Forest Legacy Program dollars. In fact, this project was recognized as one of the most meritorious in the country by a distinguished panel of experts at the United States Forest Service.

I am hopeful that through increased understanding of the Forest Legacy Program and a more accurate depiction of the Katahdin Ironworks project that my colleagues will appropriately recognize and appreciate my commitment to preserving our wooded lands.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify 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 millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax relief.

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 successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help ensure 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 benefiting from this tremendous 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 as economic prosperity returns to the area. 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 during the 108th Congress. 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 modify 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 millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax relief.

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 successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone will help ensure 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 benefiting from this tremendous 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 as economic prosperity returns to the area. 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 during the 108th Congress. 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 rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman in Bangor, ME, the city I am proud to call home.

Her name is Katherine Lebowitz, but her friends call her Kay. And she has lots of friends: the citizens of Maine she represented so well in the State legislature, the residents of Bangor she served as mayor, the countless people who benefit from her tireless volunteer work for educational, cultural, and charitable causes.

Also among her close circle of friends are the more than 260,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have passed through Bangor International Airport during the last 3 years of conflict. Whether Bangor is their last stop before going overseas or the first American soil they touch on the way home, Kay Lebowitz and the wonderful Bangor Troop Greeters are there. Nearly 1,500 military flights have landed in Bangor since 2003, and the Troop Greeters have met every one day or night with cookies, homemade fudge, cell phones to call loved ones back home, cheers of gratitude, and hearty handshakes.

At the age of 90 soon to be 91 Kay has arthritis that prevents her from shaking hands, so she hugs. She hugs until her arms ache, but there is a hug for everyone. To the returning troops, she says, ``Welcome home.'' To those headed out, it is ``See you on the way back.'' And she will.

Today K-I-S-S radio in Bangor is holding a roast in honor of Kay Lebowitz. This event will include the ceremonial ``retirement'' of a pair of her trademark eyeglasses very stylish eyeglasses into the Troop Greeters Hall of Fame at Bangor International Airport. This is precisely the kind of lighthearted gesture Kay enjoys most, and it is fully in keeping with her generous spirit.

I am sure my Senate colleagues join me and all Americans in thanking the Bangor Troop Greeters for their extraordinary efforts in expressing the gratitude we all share, and in wishing the very best on this special day to Kay Lebowitz. She is a remarkable woman and a great patriot.