Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin my comments by paying tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the able ranking minority Member. They have worked very hard with all who are privileged to serve under their leadership to craft this important bill.

In the interests of time, I will focus my remarks today on three particular provisions. First, those providing $9.1 billion for an essential shipbuilding priorities; second, the provisions offered by Senator McCain, which I am proud to cosponsor, to provide standards for the treatment of detainees; and third, the amendment I am pleased to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, in offering having to deal with conveyances of closed bases.

This bill authorized $9.1 billion for shipbuilding. It also includes a provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy to conduct a one- shipyard acquisition strategy to procure the next generation DD(X) destroyers. Not only does this bill fully fund the President's budget request for the DD(X) program, but it also provides, at my request, an additional $50 million for advance procurement of the second ship in the DD(X) class at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am understandably very proud of the skilled workers at Bath Iron Works and their contribution to our Nation's defense.

This authorization for DD(X) funding aligns the Senate-passed appropriations bill, and our bill parallels the appropriations bill with this funding.

The high priority placed on shipbuilding in the Senate's version of the Defense authorization legislation stands in stark contrast to the House Defense authorization bill which actually rescinds $84 billion in funds designated for Bath Iron Works, the detailed design work on the DD(X) I secured as part of the Defense legislation signed into law last year. The House version also slashes funding for the DD(X) program contrary to what was proposed in the President's budget.

These misplaced priorities remain even when the former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, has testified repeatedly that the Navy's requirements for the next generation destroyer are clear. I look forward to working with the other Members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services to resolve this important issue in our conference.

I now turn to the issue of the treatment of detainees. The vast majority of our troops carry out their dangerous and difficult missions with fairness, compassion, and courage. To them, the actions of those who have been accused of torture against detainees are demoralizing and make the difficult task they have been assigned immeasurably more difficult. Critics of abuse at detention facilities operated by the U.S. military have attributed this abuse not only to the criminal actions of individual military personnel--and, again, that is not the vast majority of our troops--but also to the lack of clear guidance across the U.S. Government for the treatment of detainees. Senator McCain's amendment provides that clear guidance. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Finally, let me comment very briefly on the amendment offered by my colleague from Maine. It only adds insult to injury to require a community to have to pay for the property involved in a base closure. Surely we can work with our communities in a more cooperative way to enable them to pursue the economic development that is necessary to make a closed military installation a productive part of the community once again. It is the least we owe these communities struggling with base closures throughout the United States. I hope we can work out something on that amendment.

The bill before the Senate is a good one. I salute the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.

Mr. President, I rise in support today of this amendment offered by my colleague from Maine and myself to the fiscal year 2006 Defense/Authorization Bill.

Our amendment focuses on one goal, to provide the communities that are losing bases through the BRAC another opportunity to control their future redevelopment, recovery, and economic well-being.

The ``no-cost conveyance'' amendment that we have proposed would modify the BRAC Act to give the affected communities the ``right of first refusal'' with respect to the transfer of property on the base. Specifically, it would require that when making determinations concerning the transfer of property at a base, the Secretary of Defense must first offer that property to the community through its redevelopment authority. If the redevelopment authority accepts, the Secretary is required to transfer the property to the community at no cost.

This legislation provides for an important exception in the case of national security, in order to allow the Secretary to transfer the property to a military service or other entity within the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, or the Department of Homeland Security, if such action is necessary in the national security interest of the United States.

I support this amendment because I know personally what the true impact of a devastating base closure can cause to a close-knit community. I grew up just 10 miles from the now-closed Loring Air Force Base. After the base shut its doors in 1994, tens of thousands of people left northern Maine and moved away because of the limited opportunities available to them once the Air Force left town.

Given the rural area of the former Air Force base, the fact that the base was eventually transferred to the community at no cost was critically important to spurring economic growth in an area that had just been devastated by the loss of thousands of jobs overnight.

The collateral damage of the base's closure went far beyond active duty military personnel and their families. It also affected many small business owners who were forced to close their businesses and leave the area permanently. When a base closes, the need to attract new economic development is even more difficult and compounded by the fact that supporting professionals have already left the area. The resulting job losses and their impact on the local economy further highlight the need for providing the option of no-cost conveyance at a time when many areas can ill-afford to spend millions of dollars to purchase vacant buildings.

Much like a decade ago, the Midcoast region of Maine is now suffering the same devastating fate through the closure of the last active duty airfield north of New Jersey, the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Not only will this region lose 2,667 active duty personnel, 5,704 Navy family members, 715 civilian jobs, and an additional 1,300 drilling reservists who contribute to the local economy each month, but also the community will have to pay the Department of Defense fair market value for the base's property.

Communities affected by a large base closure are already reeling from the economic loss of the military as its neighbor, and to add the hardship of forcing the same community to pay the Department for vacating the area is essentially a ``double closure.''

This amendment is not just to assist a base closing in my home State of Maine, but it is to help all bases affected across the country. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and in doing so support the communities nationwide that are experiencing the far- reaching ramifications of closure or realignment due to the recent base closing round by the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

I call up amendment 2265, and I send a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, 3 years ago, the Senate enacted and the President signed into law the Dental Health Improvement Act as part of the health care safety net amendments of 2002. This was legislation authored by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and myself which authorized grants to States to help them develop innovative dental workforce development programs tailored to their specific needs.

I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from Wisconsin to provide $5 million for this important program next year to help States improve access to oral health care by strengthening the dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.

While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across all sectors of our population. Particularly, our low-income families have been left out. An estimated 25 million Americans live in areas lacking in adequate dental services. Astoundingly, as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to a dentist.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce is growing older. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will retire in the next decade. The number of dental graduates by 2015 will not be enough to replace these retirees. As a consequence, many States, particularly rural States like mine, are facing a serious shortage of dentists. In Maine, there is one general practice dentist for every 2,300 people in the Portland area. But the numbers drop off dramatically in other parts of our State. In Aroostook County, for example, which is where I am from, there is only 1 dentist for every 5,500 people. And of the 23 practicing dentists in Aroostook County, only 6 are taking on new patients. Moreover, at a time when tooth decay is the most prevalent childhood disease in America, Maine has fewer than 10 specialists in pediatric dentistry, and virtually all of them are located in the southern part of the State.

The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act authorized a new State grant program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural or underserved areas.

Now, States could use these grants for a variety of programs. For example, they might use the grant for loan forgiveness or repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They could also use the grant funds to establish or expand community- or school-based dental clinics or to set up mobile or portable dental facilities.

To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States could use the funds for placement and support of dental students, residents, and advanced dentistry trainees. Or they could use the grants for continuing education, for distance-based education, and practice support through teledentistry.

Our amendment is supported by the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Dental Hygienists Association, and other members of the Dental Access Coalition. It is also fully offset.

There is clearly a need to make our oral health care services more accessible in our Nation's rural and underserved communities.

Again, I end my remarks with what I think is a troubling and astonishing statistic; and that is, that 11 percent of rural Americans have never been to the dentist. This is a serious public health challenge, and this modest investment could make a real difference.

I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Feingold and me in supporting this amendment.

I thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for working so closely with us to identify an appropriate offset.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment that would increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $2.9 billion. I want to begin my remarks by thanking the manager of this bill, Senator Specter, for his strong commitment to the LIHEAP program. Despite difficult budgetary constraints, the chairman has found an additional $200 million in LIHEAP funding above the administration's request, bringing the total to approximately $2.2 billion. I do recognize and very much appreciate that effort.

Unfortunately, even with this additional funding, we are still far short of the amount of funding that is needed for this vital program. Just a few months ago, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law, which passed the Senate with an overwhelming vote, authorizes $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program for fiscal year 2006. The Reed-Collins amendment would increase LIHEAP funding to the fully authorized level.

Our Nation has now been struck by three extremely powerful hurricanes in as many months. While these hurricanes have been devastating to the people of Florida and the gulf coast, they have also had a major impact on the rest of the Nation. Just as the Nation should be building oil supplies for the winter heating season, these hurricanes have disrupted our already strained supplies and sent the cost of both home heating oil and gasoline, as well as natural gas, to painfully high levels.

While high energy prices pose a challenge for almost all Americans, they impose an especially difficult burden on low-income families and our elderly citizens who are living on limited incomes. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on heating their homes, and they have fewer options available as energy prices soar. High energy prices can even cause families to choose between keeping the heat on, putting food on their table, or buying much-needed prescription drugs. In our country, the most prosperous country on Earth, surely no family should have to make such terrible choices.

I believe our amendment reflects a realistic appraisal of the need for more assistance in this program. Let me briefly describe the situation that we are facing in my State of Maine, a State where snow is predicted for later today. While the official start of winter is still 2 months away, temperatures have already fallen below freezing in much of Maine. In Maine, 78 percent of all households use home heating oil to heat their homes. Currently, the cost of home heating oil is approximately $2.50 per gallon, although I recently paid 20 cents more per gallon to fill my tank.

That price, the $2.50 price, is some 60 cents above last year's already high prices. These high prices greatly increase the need for assistance and at least 3,000 additional Mainers are expected to apply for LIHEAP assistance this year. With more people in need of help, the benefit is expected to fall by roughly 10 percent, to about $440 per qualifying household.

Unfortunately, at today's high prices, $440 is only enough to purchase approximately 173 gallons of oil. That is far below last year's equivalent benefit of 251 gallons and not nearly enough, not even close, to what will be needed by these families to get through Maine's winter.

With rising prices and falling benefits, we have a real problem. To purchase the same amount of oil as last year, Maine would need an additional $10.8 million in LIHEAP funding. With winter fast approaching and energy prices soaring, home heating bills are set to pound family budgets mercilessly. For low-income families, LIHEAP funds can be a factor that prevents them from having to choose between turning down the heat to the point where they are at risk for hypothermia or putting food on the table, paying their bills or buying prescription drugs.

Surely we can do better to help those who otherwise will truly suffer during the winter months.

I call upon all of our colleagues to join us in this amendment or surely it will be too late to help those who are going to be in dire straits this winter. Let us act now to provide the funding that is so sorely needed.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, the Senator from Rhode Island and I have been waiting for some time to give our comments. I expect that my comments are only going to be 5 minutes.

Madam President, first, let me thank my colleague and friend from Rhode Island for accommodating my schedule and for his usual graciousness. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on an initiative that is so important to low-income families in our country and that is increasing the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We are proposing to increase the funding to the amount authorized by the energy legislation that was signed into law a couple of months ago, so we are proposing to bring it to the fully authorized level of $5.1 billion.

Madam President, I am sure it is very similar in your State. When I go home to Maine, as I do every weekend, the No. 1 issue that people talk to me about is the high cost of energy. They have expressed over and over their fear that they simply will not be able to afford the cost of heating oil for their homes this winter. The cost increases have been enormous. They are, in part, attributable to the two hurricanes that we have endured, and that is why I view this as part of the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita.

Right now in Maine, we have already had some nights that have plunged below freezing. In Maine, 78 percent of all households use home heating oil to heat their homes. Currently, the cost of home heating oil is more than $2.50 per gallon. I actually paid $2.72 per gallon recently. That is a considerable increase, 60 cents or more a gallon, over last year's already high prices.

These high prices greatly increase the need for assistance. More low- income families are going to be in dire straits. Moreover, as it increases, it has an impact on the amount of money that can be given out, so we have a pot of money that is going to have to be spread over a larger population at a time when prices are soaring.

Last year, there was an average benefit in Maine of $480. This year it is expected that the benefit would have to be cut to $440. That would purchase only 173 gallons of oil, far below last year's equivalent benefit of 251 gallons, and not nearly enough, of course, to go through a Maine winter. To purchase the same amount of oil this year as last, Maine would need an additional $10.8 million in LIHEAP funds.

This really is a choice, for many low-income families in our country, of buying the home heating oil or natural gas that they need to keep warm or putting adequate food on the table or buying much-needed prescription drugs. Surely, in a country as prosperous as ours, no low- income family should be forced to make those kinds of choices.

I urge support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and myself, and again I thank the Senator for his courtesy in yielding to me.

Mr. President, I also point out that there is a special inspector general overseeing all of these contracts. His name is Stuart Bowen. He does an excellent job. He has been very aggressive in his audits and investigations. He regularly briefs all Members who are interested, and he issues a report every quarter on his findings. So I do believe we have an adequate structure in place, a needed structure to be sure.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. I oppose this conference report for three main reasons. First, the funding levels for first responder grants has been slashed to the lowest levels in the post-9/11 era despite the evident need for resources. Second, the bill adopts a formula for the distribution of first responder grants that is unpredictable, lacking in basic fiscal safeguards and will leave many parts of this country vulnerable. Third, this conference report underfunds mass transit security.

This conference report cuts the funding allocation for State and local first responder grants from $1.1 billion enacted in fiscal year 2005 to only $550 million for fiscal year 2006, an unacceptable and unwise reduction. Moreover, the level contained in the conference report is a full $270 million less than the amount requested in the administration's budget request. Unfortunately, these reductions continue a downward trend. The overall amount of homeland security funding for first responders and state and local needs has declined by $1.2 billion in just the past 2 years.

This is not the time to slash funding levels of these critical preparedness grants. These Draconian cuts are particularly remarkable given the recent failures in the response to Hurricane Katrina. That disaster clearly indicated that this Nation is not as prepared as it must be and that Federal, State, and local first responders and emergency managers are lacking critical equipment, especially communications gear and training resources. This is not the time to be cutting the resources available for these vital preparedness programs.

The second reason I voted against the conference report was because it adopts a formula to distribute these funds that is unbalanced, unpredictable and lacks accountability measures that are needed to ensure funds are spent wisely. Indeed, this conference report underscores the need for the bill Senator Lieberman and I have developed, and the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed, to ensure a stable level of funding for all States. The approach taken in our bill would establish a formula that provides a predictable level of funding-- scaled to reflect the different needs of states--that will allow all States to achieve essential preparedness and prevention capabilities.

We don't know where the next terrorist attack will take place. There is no way to predict where the next hurricane, tornado, or outbreak of pandemic influenza will occur. Therefore, we must raise the preparedness of all States to a minimum level of preparedness.

Unfortunately, the approach taken by the conference report does not provide an adequate base level to help States and localities establish minimum levels of preparedness. Nor does it recognize, as our bill does, that some States, because of larger or more dense populations, need more funding than others to establish essential preparedness capabilities.

Additionally, under the ad hoc approach taken in this conference report, States cannot count on a predictable stream of funding, which makes it impossible to implement the long-range plans the DHS requires of them. We need a fair formula, in statute, that does not jump from year to year as is currently the case.

Additionally, accountability measures--like independent audits, robust reporting requirements, and tying spending to standards--are simply not in place. We need to adopt authorizing legislation to ensure this funding is being properly spent.

It is disappointing that the appropriators largely adopted the House position on how to distribute this funding. This is particularly the case given that the bill Senator Lieberman and I put together received the support of more than 70 Senators just this past July.

Finally, this conference report is flawed because it shortchanges vulnerable areas, in particular, transit security. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs recently held hearings on this important topic which revealed vulnerabilities in our transit systems. The attacks in Madrid and London demonstrate that terrorists are willing and able to attack transit systems; it is unconscionable that we are not doing more to secure our domestic transit systems.

Our Nation must make more progress in improving its ability to respond to

catastrophic disasters, whether natural or from a terrorist attack. Congress owes it to our constituents and to our first responders to be more thoughtful in how we provide the resources necessary to improve our ability to deter, detect, and respond to threats facing our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Warner and Coburn, to introduce a bill establishing an Under Secretary for Policy within the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation would meet a critical need of the Department: an official at the highest

level of the Department to develop coherent strategies and provide comprehensive policy guidance for responding to the full range of threats to our homeland.

This past spring, soon after being confirmed as the second Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff conducted a top-to-bottom review of the Department. As Secretary Chertoff said at the launch of this ``Second Stage Review,'' the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security ``to do more than simply erect a big tent under which a lot of different organizations would be collected.'' Instead, the purpose of the Department is to integrate the capabilities and achieve unity of effort among a wide range of agencies and entities that are involved in protecting our homeland.

In July, Secretary Chertoff announced the results of the ``Second Stage Review'' and proposed several organizational changes aimed at further integrating the Department's many components. Chief among these proposed changes was the creation of a Senate-confirmed Under Secretary with responsibility for policy development across the Department.

Thus, in keeping with Secretary Chertoff's proposal, this legislation would create an Under Secretary for Policy who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. This Under Secretary would serve as the Secretary's principal policy advisor and enable the Department to develop comprehensive policies and strategies--across all of the Departments' components--to meet homeland security challenge. The Under Secretary's responsibilities would cover four key areas: policy development, strategic planning, international affairs, and private sector outreach. The policy development and strategic planning functions are new, while the international affairs and private sector outreach functions are transferred from other parts of the Department in order to consolidate the full range of policy- level functions under this Under Secretary.

We need no better reason to take up this bill than the tragic events of a month ago. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, but the devastation, suffering, and deprivation left in the wake of this powerful storm were compounded by the failure of all levels of government--local, State, and Federal--to prepare and respond in a unified, integrated way. Moreover, the capabilities needed to have dealt with Hurricane Katrina are in many instances the same capabilities that are needed to protect America from terrorism.

The governmental failures highlighted by Hurricane Katrina are evidence of the need for greater integration and unity of effort within the Department. At the heart of this integration, the Department needs a stronger emphasis on policy development and strategic planning to meet the full range of threats to our homeland. Creating an Under Secretary for Policy is a critical step for ensuring that our government has a truly capable Department of Homeland Security.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill establishing an Under Secretary for Policy within the Department of Homeland Security be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Warner and Coburn, to introduce a bill establishing an Under Secretary for Policy within the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation would meet a critical need of the Department: an official at the highest

level of the Department to develop coherent strategies and provide comprehensive policy guidance for responding to the full range of threats to our homeland.

This past spring, soon after being confirmed as the second Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff conducted a top-to-bottom review of the Department. As Secretary Chertoff said at the launch of this ``Second Stage Review,'' the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security ``to do more than simply erect a big tent under which a lot of different organizations would be collected.'' Instead, the purpose of the Department is to integrate the capabilities and achieve unity of effort among a wide range of agencies and entities that are involved in protecting our homeland.

In July, Secretary Chertoff announced the results of the ``Second Stage Review'' and proposed several organizational changes aimed at further integrating the Department's many components. Chief among these proposed changes was the creation of a Senate-confirmed Under Secretary with responsibility for policy development across the Department.

Thus, in keeping with Secretary Chertoff's proposal, this legislation would create an Under Secretary for Policy who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. This Under Secretary would serve as the Secretary's principal policy advisor and enable the Department to develop comprehensive policies and strategies--across all of the Departments' components--to meet homeland security challenge. The Under Secretary's responsibilities would cover four key areas: policy development, strategic planning, international affairs, and private sector outreach. The policy development and strategic planning functions are new, while the international affairs and private sector outreach functions are transferred from other parts of the Department in order to consolidate the full range of policy- level functions under this Under Secretary.

We need no better reason to take up this bill than the tragic events of a month ago. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, but the devastation, suffering, and deprivation left in the wake of this powerful storm were compounded by the failure of all levels of government--local, State, and Federal--to prepare and respond in a unified, integrated way. Moreover, the capabilities needed to have dealt with Hurricane Katrina are in many instances the same capabilities that are needed to protect America from terrorism.

The governmental failures highlighted by Hurricane Katrina are evidence of the need for greater integration and unity of effort within the Department. At the heart of this integration, the Department needs a stronger emphasis on policy development and strategic planning to meet the full range of threats to our homeland. Creating an Under Secretary for Policy is a critical step for ensuring that our government has a truly capable Department of Homeland Security.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill establishing an Under Secretary for Policy within the Department of Homeland Security be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, all along our Nation's coasts are harbors that were once full of the sights, sounds, and smells that accompany the fishing industry. Unfortunately, a number of factors are converging to lead to the loss of our Nation's vital fishing infrastructure, which is essential for the continuance of the commercial fishing industry. I have drafted legislation that will help to combat the loss of commercial access to our waterfronts and to support the fishing industry's role in our maritime heritage.

In July, I was contacted by Andy Hawke of Boothbay Harbor, ME, a lobsterman who explained that the local lobstermen's cooperative had recently come up for sale. Unfortunately, the local fishermen could not come up with the resources to purchase the cooperative's facilities, and they were looking for Federal assistance in order to keep this coastal property accessible to the commercial fishing industry. Their goal was to keep the cooperative in operation for the lobstermen of Boothbay Harbor and the ``upcoming youth who will be in the lobster industry.''

There was little assistance that I could offer beyond identifying some grant programs that might apply. I discovered quickly that there is no targeted, Federal program to help the commercial fishing industry gain or preserve access to waterfront areas. At the same time, the pressures that drive the commercial fishing industry from these vital pieces of industry infrastructure are mounting. I rise today to introduce legislation that would create a program to assist our Nation's commercial fishermen, the Working Waterfront Preservation Act.

I can best speak to this issue by pointing to the loss of commercial waterfront access in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. Sadly, portions of Maine's working waterfront are being sold weekly and converted to other uses, most often second homes and condominiums.

The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private spaces and second

homes that no longer are the center of economic activity.

Maine's lack of commercial waterfront access has prompted the formation of a Working Waterfront Coalition. This coalition is comprised of an impressive number of industry associations, non-profit groups, and State agencies, who have come together to preserve Maine's working waterfront.

Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic development along the coast. Maine's Working Waterfront Coalition identified 18 projects that would increase Maine's available working waterfront. These 18 projects would create or preserve over 875 Maine jobs. All that is needed is a modest investment in Maine's working waterfront.

The loss of commercial waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal States. On August 28, 2005, a story appeared in the Providence Journal about the fishing port of Galilee in Rhode Island. Fishermen from Galilee are getting pushed out of the waterfront as their profitability shrinks and land values soar. This article detailed plans to create more condominiums in Galilee and $2 million beach houses marketed to buyers from Connecticut and New York.

On July 26, 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a story on the disappearance of working waterfront in Florida. In June of this year, Governor Bush signed a law aimed at protecting that State's working waterfront.

On February 20, 2005, the Seattle Times profiled the Washington town of Anacortes's struggle with development and the future of this port. In this story, the city attorney and planner said that the biggest issue facing this town is whether they can continue to have a working waterfront, as Anacortes ``is still a real town where people are making a real living.''

Another region of the country where this bill will help the local community and stimulate economic growth is a region we have heard a lot about in recent news, the gulf coast. On September 6, 2005, the Houston Chronicle ran a story on the havoc caused by Hurricane Katrina to Alabama's fishing industry. This disaster hit the town of Bayou La Batre; it destroyed oyster beds, upended fishing boats, and damaged the docks and piers on which the fishing industry relies. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist the victims of this storm in rebuilding the shore-side infrastructure vital to the industry.

No matter the coastal State, our Nation's fishermen are affected by the loss of access to commercial waterfront properties. I have drafted legislation targeting this exact problem, as no Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, Washington, and Alabama, which are trying to cope with the loss of this valuable infrastructure.

The loss of commercial waterfront access is apparent. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and State fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of receiving Federal assistance.

This legislation also has a tax component included. When properties or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the gain they receive from this sale. Taxing only half of the gain on conservation sales is a proposal that has been advanced by the President in all of his budget proposals. This is a vital aspect of my bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in this grant program. This is especially important given that the application process for Federal grants does not keep pace with the coastal real estate market.

This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and promote economic development along our coast. I am committed to creating a Federal mechanism to preserve working waterfronts and will pursue this legislation during the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, all along our Nation's coasts are harbors that were once full of the sights, sounds, and smells that accompany the fishing industry. Unfortunately, a number of factors are converging to lead to the loss of our Nation's vital fishing infrastructure, which is essential for the continuance of the commercial fishing industry. I have drafted legislation that will help to combat the loss of commercial access to our waterfronts and to support the fishing industry's role in our maritime heritage.

In July, I was contacted by Andy Hawke of Boothbay Harbor, ME, a lobsterman who explained that the local lobstermen's cooperative had recently come up for sale. Unfortunately, the local fishermen could not come up with the resources to purchase the cooperative's facilities, and they were looking for Federal assistance in order to keep this coastal property accessible to the commercial fishing industry. Their goal was to keep the cooperative in operation for the lobstermen of Boothbay Harbor and the ``upcoming youth who will be in the lobster industry.''

There was little assistance that I could offer beyond identifying some grant programs that might apply. I discovered quickly that there is no targeted, Federal program to help the commercial fishing industry gain or preserve access to waterfront areas. At the same time, the pressures that drive the commercial fishing industry from these vital pieces of industry infrastructure are mounting. I rise today to introduce legislation that would create a program to assist our Nation's commercial fishermen, the Working Waterfront Preservation Act.

I can best speak to this issue by pointing to the loss of commercial waterfront access in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. Sadly, portions of Maine's working waterfront are being sold weekly and converted to other uses, most often second homes and condominiums.

The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private spaces and second

homes that no longer are the center of economic activity.

Maine's lack of commercial waterfront access has prompted the formation of a Working Waterfront Coalition. This coalition is comprised of an impressive number of industry associations, non-profit groups, and State agencies, who have come together to preserve Maine's working waterfront.

Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic development along the coast. Maine's Working Waterfront Coalition identified 18 projects that would increase Maine's available working waterfront. These 18 projects would create or preserve over 875 Maine jobs. All that is needed is a modest investment in Maine's working waterfront.

The loss of commercial waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal States. On August 28, 2005, a story appeared in the Providence Journal about the fishing port of Galilee in Rhode Island. Fishermen from Galilee are getting pushed out of the waterfront as their profitability shrinks and land values soar. This article detailed plans to create more condominiums in Galilee and $2 million beach houses marketed to buyers from Connecticut and New York.

On July 26, 2005, the Los Angeles Times ran a story on the disappearance of working waterfront in Florida. In June of this year, Governor Bush signed a law aimed at protecting that State's working waterfront.

On February 20, 2005, the Seattle Times profiled the Washington town of Anacortes's struggle with development and the future of this port. In this story, the city attorney and planner said that the biggest issue facing this town is whether they can continue to have a working waterfront, as Anacortes ``is still a real town where people are making a real living.''

Another region of the country where this bill will help the local community and stimulate economic growth is a region we have heard a lot about in recent news, the gulf coast. On September 6, 2005, the Houston Chronicle ran a story on the havoc caused by Hurricane Katrina to Alabama's fishing industry. This disaster hit the town of Bayou La Batre; it destroyed oyster beds, upended fishing boats, and damaged the docks and piers on which the fishing industry relies. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist the victims of this storm in rebuilding the shore-side infrastructure vital to the industry.

No matter the coastal State, our Nation's fishermen are affected by the loss of access to commercial waterfront properties. I have drafted legislation targeting this exact problem, as no Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, Washington, and Alabama, which are trying to cope with the loss of this valuable infrastructure.

The loss of commercial waterfront access is apparent. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and State fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of receiving Federal assistance.

This legislation also has a tax component included. When properties or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the gain they receive from this sale. Taxing only half of the gain on conservation sales is a proposal that has been advanced by the President in all of his budget proposals. This is a vital aspect of my bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in this grant program. This is especially important given that the application process for Federal grants does not keep pace with the coastal real estate market.

This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and promote economic development along our coast. I am committed to creating a Federal mechanism to preserve working waterfronts and will pursue this legislation during the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, first, let me commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his thoughtful approach to the issue of whether our laws and authorities are adequate to deal with a disaster of the magnitude of Katrina.

He has indicated his interest in taking a hard look at the Posse Comitatus law and also the Insurrection Act, both of which put certain restrictions on the ability of Active-Duty Forces to be used for law enforcement purposes and in other ways. I commend him for raising these very important issues.

It was evident from the briefing we had with FEMA and Coast Guard officials last week before the Homeland Security Committee that those on the front lines believe the current structures are inadequate to deal with a catastrophe of this magnitude. We talked directly to FEMA's Director of Operations as well as to a Coast Guard admiral who has been in charge of the search-and-rescue operation. Each of them, in response to questions from both of us, indicated this catastrophe has overwhelmed the organizational structures and requires a new way of thinking. Both of them indicated interest in our taking a look, a close examination, at the two acts which the distinguished chairman has mentioned. I commend him for following up on this issue.

I think it is important that we look at that, as well as a host of other issues related to our preparedness and our response.

The Senator is correct. He is a career employee, a member of the Senior Executive Service, with extensive experience.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes and that the allocated time be extended accordingly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Byrd be recognized at 11 a.m. and Senator Vitter be recognized at 11:30 a.m. in order to address the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, along with the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, I am today introducing the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. Our legislation is designed to provide State and local decision makers with greater control options and flexibility in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2002. It would provide commonsense reforms in keeping with the worthy goals of this landmark law.

Since the law's enactment in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with many educators, administrators, parents, and officials from my home State to discuss their concerns regarding the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act reform. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned a Maine NCLB task force in March of last year. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work. I am very grateful for their dedicated service and hard work.

Senator Snowe and I charged the task force with three core missions: First, to examine the problems facing Maine schools, particularly those in rural areas of our State in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act and to recommend improvements in current regulations and policies; second, to make recommendations for statutory changes in the Federal law; and, third, to provide greater clarity to Maine's educators, parents, and citizens about the law's goals, requirements, and relationship to Maine's own State education reform effort which is known as Maine Learning Results. What we found is there was some confusion about what was required by No Child Left Behind versus what was required by Maine Learning Results and how the two interacted.

The task force met numerous times over the course of the year with the goal of gaining a clearer understanding of NCLB and the implementation issues facing Maine under federal and State education policies. The task force also had the benefit of meeting with officials from the U.S. Department of Education, including then-Deputy Secretary Hickok who twice traveled to Maine to meet with the task force. The task force also met with other state officials who shared their expertise in particular areas.

After the task force completed its work, Senator Snowe and I met with task force members at the University of Maine in Orono to receive the final report and to discuss the greatest challenges facing Maine with the implementation of both federal and State education initiatives.

I was very impressed with the reports we received from the task force, both the depth and the quality of the task force's analysis, as well as the practicality of its recommendations. I shared the report with several of my Senate colleagues, including the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, as well as with the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, and Maine's education commissioner.

I note Secretary Spellings responded with a letter praising the task force for its hard work.

The task force report included 26 recommendations for changes to the No Child Left Behind law or the regulations governing its implementation. The task force provided recommendations in five core areas: Annual yearly progress and assessment, reading and limited English proficiency students, special education, highly qualified teachers and funding. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education, for local schools to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. Those 26 recommendations provide the foundation for the legislation I am introducing today.

Over the past several months, Senator Snowe and I have taken these recommendations and worked together to translate them into comprehensive legislation. Our legislation would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine.

For example, the task force recommended that States be allowed to measure student performance using different models, such as growth models, and that special education experts on the IEP team be allowed to determine the best assessment for special education students. Both of these recommendations are included in our legislation.

We believe that our legislation will provide a strong basis for continuing discussions about the implementation challenges facing the States and will highlight key issues requiring further consideration during the reauthorization process, expected to begin later in the 109th Congress.

Although our legislation seeks to improve the NCLB implementation process through specific statutory reforms, we recognize that, in some cases, the goals of our legislation may be accomplished more quickly through changes to guidance and regulations from the Department or Education, or through amendments to the states' own implementation plans. We will continue to seek additional flexibility through these avenues to address the immediate implementation concerns facing the States, and believe that our legislation provides a useful guide to federal and State officials in these efforts.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns raised by our task force and includes the following provisions:

First, our legislation would provide new flexibility in the design of state accountability systems used to determine ``adequate yearly progress'' or AYP. Our legislation would explicitly permit a state to include additional models ``discussed further below'' in its State plan to demonstrate student progress. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. The principle here is one of more accurately assessing whether all students are continuing to make progress.

Our legislation specifically outlines three additional models that would be permitted under the statute: No. 1, a cohort growth model, which demonstrates student progress by following the same cohort of students over time; No. 2, an indexing model, which demonstrates student progress through improved performance for students below the proficient level--for example, improvement from a below basic to a basic level; and No. 3, ``top performing schools'' model, which demonstrates improvement through progress in closing the achievement gap between the lowest performing students and, for example, student performance at the State's top 20 percent of schools.

The list of models in our legislation is not exclusive, and this section reflects our interest in permitting a far greater diversity in the types of State accountability systems acceptable under the statute. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance.

Second, our legislation would modify the existing ``safe-harbor'' provision to allow more schools to take advantage of this provision. The ``safe-harbor'' provision in the law is really another example of an improvement model already permitted under the statute. In order to qualify for the safe-harbor provision under current law, schools must reduce the number of students scoring below the proficient level by 10 percent in a single year.

As the task force found, this has proven to be a difficult threshold to meet, which has resulted in an underutilization of the safe harbor provision. Therefore, we have modified the safe harbor to require only a 5 percent decrease in the number of non-proficient students, or an aggregate decrease of 10 percent over 2 years. Our modification would reflect what education assessment experts already know: Significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time.

Third, our legislation also would provide new flexibility related to the statute's 100 percent proficiency requirements for 2013-2014-- another specific recommendation of the task force. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to conduct a review every three years to determine the progress of the 50 States towards meeting the 100 percent goal of the statute by 2013-2014. The Secretary would then be permitted, at her discretion, to make modifications to the requirements of the 12-year time-line if she determines modifications are necessary and in keeping with the broader purposes of the law.

Fourth, our legislation would also provide greater predictability to the school identification process, and limit school identification to those schools most in need of improvement. Currently, a school is designated as ``in need of improvement'' after it fails to make AYP for 2 years in a row in the same subject, regardless of what subgroup has failed to make AYP. Our legislation would require that in order to be found in need of improvement, a school would need to fail to make AYP in both the same subject area and with respect to the same subgroup of students 2 years in a row.

As our task force noted, the current rules can be extremely frustrating for school administrators who work hard to address a reading concern with one group--for example, LEP students--in year one, only to subsequently be identified in need of improvement when they learn that a different subgroup--for example, special education students--failed to make AYP in year two.

We must provide our schools with notice and an ability to work to improve student performance before they are identified as in need of improvement. I share the task force's concern that without these modifications, we risk quickly reaching a point where so many schools are found to be in need of school improvement, that the identification becomes meaningless. Worse yet, over-identification of schools creates the risk of having improvement resources spread too thin to make a difference in helping the schools that truly need assistance.

Fifth, our legislation would provide additional flexibility for teachers of multiple academic subjects at the middle and high school level in meeting teacher quality requirements. The task force heard from many teachers in Maine about the burden the current requirements have placed on teachers in small and rural schools. Our legislation provides new options for these teachers to become highly qualified. It also would allow teachers of history, geography, civics, and related subjects to demonstrate subject area knowledge through the obtainment of a general State social-studies certificate.

Sixth, our legislation addresses concerns about limited English proficient students. The task force was concerned about an unintended consequence of the current law, whereby once a student becomes proficient in English, that student may no longer be included in the LEP subgroup. Federal officials have taken steps to address this issue, but our legislation would go further to correct this problem. Our bill would allow a school to continue to count students who have attained English proficiency for purposes of calculating AYP until the student graduates from high school.

Seventh, our legislation would clarify that local assessment systems are permissible under NCLB. This was an issue of some confusion in Maine, despite the fact that I had written a letter to then-Secretary Paige and received strong assurances of the acceptability of such systems. Both Nebraska and Iowa have been approved to use local assessment systems to meet NCLB assessment requirements. Although Maine continues the process of developing its own local assessment system pursuant to state requirements, I am confident that nothing in the federal statute would preclude Maine from incorporating a local assessment system at a time when state officials decide they are ready to pursue this option. But our bill makes this crystal-clear.

Eighth, our legislation would also revise upward the minimum amount of funding required for the assessment provisions to go into effect for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. This change is based on a recommendation by the task force that efforts be made to ensure adequate funding for the requirements of the statute.

These revised levels are based on a GAO report that I required as part of the conference report to NCLB. The GAO report estimated that although most States, including Maine, had the majority of their assessment costs covered, particularly in the early years, additional resources would be needed in future years as the assessment requirements increased. The report estimated that Maine would have 86 percent of its assessment costs covered through 2007, and while this is significant funding, additional funding will ensure that all States have the resources they need, particularly for the adaptation of tests for LEP and special education populations.

Finally, our legislation would also address concerns that some special education students are being required to take grade-level assessments that are inappropriate for them. Our legislation would build on the important new flexibility the Secretary has provided in this area. Our legislation would allow the student's IEP team to determine the appropriate test for a student, and if a special education student achieves a proficient score on this test, the student will be deemed proficient for AYP purposes. The IEP requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA--will ensure both parent involvement in this process, and increasingly higher expectations for these students. We agree with the task force that the involvement of parents and the IEP team will serve as an important safeguard to ensure that those special education students who can be assessed according to State-determined grade-level expectations will be encouraged to do so.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common-sense modifications to address the key NCLB implementation challenges facing Maine, and other States. At the same time, our legislation remains true to the important goals of NCLB, such as increasing accountability, closing the achievement gap, and improving student performance. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this landmark law during the reauthorization process.

Mr. President, along with the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, I am today introducing the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. Our legislation is designed to provide State and local decision makers with greater control options and flexibility in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2002. It would provide commonsense reforms in keeping with the worthy goals of this landmark law.

Since the law's enactment in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with many educators, administrators, parents, and officials from my home State to discuss their concerns regarding the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act reform. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned a Maine NCLB task force in March of last year. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work. I am very grateful for their dedicated service and hard work.

Senator Snowe and I charged the task force with three core missions: First, to examine the problems facing Maine schools, particularly those in rural areas of our State in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act and to recommend improvements in current regulations and policies; second, to make recommendations for statutory changes in the Federal law; and, third, to provide greater clarity to Maine's educators, parents, and citizens about the law's goals, requirements, and relationship to Maine's own State education reform effort which is known as Maine Learning Results. What we found is there was some confusion about what was required by No Child Left Behind versus what was required by Maine Learning Results and how the two interacted.

The task force met numerous times over the course of the year with the goal of gaining a clearer understanding of NCLB and the implementation issues facing Maine under federal and State education policies. The task force also had the benefit of meeting with officials from the U.S. Department of Education, including then-Deputy Secretary Hickok who twice traveled to Maine to meet with the task force. The task force also met with other state officials who shared their expertise in particular areas.

After the task force completed its work, Senator Snowe and I met with task force members at the University of Maine in Orono to receive the final report and to discuss the greatest challenges facing Maine with the implementation of both federal and State education initiatives.

I was very impressed with the reports we received from the task force, both the depth and the quality of the task force's analysis, as well as the practicality of its recommendations. I shared the report with several of my Senate colleagues, including the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee, as well as with the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, and Maine's education commissioner.

I note Secretary Spellings responded with a letter praising the task force for its hard work.

The task force report included 26 recommendations for changes to the No Child Left Behind law or the regulations governing its implementation. The task force provided recommendations in five core areas: Annual yearly progress and assessment, reading and limited English proficiency students, special education, highly qualified teachers and funding. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education, for local schools to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. Those 26 recommendations provide the foundation for the legislation I am introducing today.

Over the past several months, Senator Snowe and I have taken these recommendations and worked together to translate them into comprehensive legislation. Our legislation would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine.

For example, the task force recommended that States be allowed to measure student performance using different models, such as growth models, and that special education experts on the IEP team be allowed to determine the best assessment for special education students. Both of these recommendations are included in our legislation.

We believe that our legislation will provide a strong basis for continuing discussions about the implementation challenges facing the States and will highlight key issues requiring further consideration during the reauthorization process, expected to begin later in the 109th Congress.

Although our legislation seeks to improve the NCLB implementation process through specific statutory reforms, we recognize that, in some cases, the goals of our legislation may be accomplished more quickly through changes to guidance and regulations from the Department or Education, or through amendments to the states' own implementation plans. We will continue to seek additional flexibility through these avenues to address the immediate implementation concerns facing the States, and believe that our legislation provides a useful guide to federal and State officials in these efforts.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns raised by our task force and includes the following provisions:

First, our legislation would provide new flexibility in the design of state accountability systems used to determine ``adequate yearly progress'' or AYP. Our legislation would explicitly permit a state to include additional models ``discussed further below'' in its State plan to demonstrate student progress. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. The principle here is one of more accurately assessing whether all students are continuing to make progress.

Our legislation specifically outlines three additional models that would be permitted under the statute: No. 1, a cohort growth model, which demonstrates student progress by following the same cohort of students over time; No. 2, an indexing model, which demonstrates student progress through improved performance for students below the proficient level--for example, improvement from a below basic to a basic level; and No. 3, ``top performing schools'' model, which demonstrates improvement through progress in closing the achievement gap between the lowest performing students and, for example, student performance at the State's top 20 percent of schools.

The list of models in our legislation is not exclusive, and this section reflects our interest in permitting a far greater diversity in the types of State accountability systems acceptable under the statute. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance.

Second, our legislation would modify the existing ``safe-harbor'' provision to allow more schools to take advantage of this provision. The ``safe-harbor'' provision in the law is really another example of an improvement model already permitted under the statute. In order to qualify for the safe-harbor provision under current law, schools must reduce the number of students scoring below the proficient level by 10 percent in a single year.

As the task force found, this has proven to be a difficult threshold to meet, which has resulted in an underutilization of the safe harbor provision. Therefore, we have modified the safe harbor to require only a 5 percent decrease in the number of non-proficient students, or an aggregate decrease of 10 percent over 2 years. Our modification would reflect what education assessment experts already know: Significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time.

Third, our legislation also would provide new flexibility related to the statute's 100 percent proficiency requirements for 2013-2014-- another specific recommendation of the task force. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to conduct a review every three years to determine the progress of the 50 States towards meeting the 100 percent goal of the statute by 2013-2014. The Secretary would then be permitted, at her discretion, to make modifications to the requirements of the 12-year time-line if she determines modifications are necessary and in keeping with the broader purposes of the law.

Fourth, our legislation would also provide greater predictability to the school identification process, and limit school identification to those schools most in need of improvement. Currently, a school is designated as ``in need of improvement'' after it fails to make AYP for 2 years in a row in the same subject, regardless of what subgroup has failed to make AYP. Our legislation would require that in order to be found in need of improvement, a school would need to fail to make AYP in both the same subject area and with respect to the same subgroup of students 2 years in a row.

As our task force noted, the current rules can be extremely frustrating for school administrators who work hard to address a reading concern with one group--for example, LEP students--in year one, only to subsequently be identified in need of improvement when they learn that a different subgroup--for example, special education students--failed to make AYP in year two.

We must provide our schools with notice and an ability to work to improve student performance before they are identified as in need of improvement. I share the task force's concern that without these modifications, we risk quickly reaching a point where so many schools are found to be in need of school improvement, that the identification becomes meaningless. Worse yet, over-identification of schools creates the risk of having improvement resources spread too thin to make a difference in helping the schools that truly need assistance.

Fifth, our legislation would provide additional flexibility for teachers of multiple academic subjects at the middle and high school level in meeting teacher quality requirements. The task force heard from many teachers in Maine about the burden the current requirements have placed on teachers in small and rural schools. Our legislation provides new options for these teachers to become highly qualified. It also would allow teachers of history, geography, civics, and related subjects to demonstrate subject area knowledge through the obtainment of a general State social-studies certificate.

Sixth, our legislation addresses concerns about limited English proficient students. The task force was concerned about an unintended consequence of the current law, whereby once a student becomes proficient in English, that student may no longer be included in the LEP subgroup. Federal officials have taken steps to address this issue, but our legislation would go further to correct this problem. Our bill would allow a school to continue to count students who have attained English proficiency for purposes of calculating AYP until the student graduates from high school.

Seventh, our legislation would clarify that local assessment systems are permissible under NCLB. This was an issue of some confusion in Maine, despite the fact that I had written a letter to then-Secretary Paige and received strong assurances of the acceptability of such systems. Both Nebraska and Iowa have been approved to use local assessment systems to meet NCLB assessment requirements. Although Maine continues the process of developing its own local assessment system pursuant to state requirements, I am confident that nothing in the federal statute would preclude Maine from incorporating a local assessment system at a time when state officials decide they are ready to pursue this option. But our bill makes this crystal-clear.

Eighth, our legislation would also revise upward the minimum amount of funding required for the assessment provisions to go into effect for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. This change is based on a recommendation by the task force that efforts be made to ensure adequate funding for the requirements of the statute.

These revised levels are based on a GAO report that I required as part of the conference report to NCLB. The GAO report estimated that although most States, including Maine, had the majority of their assessment costs covered, particularly in the early years, additional resources would be needed in future years as the assessment requirements increased. The report estimated that Maine would have 86 percent of its assessment costs covered through 2007, and while this is significant funding, additional funding will ensure that all States have the resources they need, particularly for the adaptation of tests for LEP and special education populations.

Finally, our legislation would also address concerns that some special education students are being required to take grade-level assessments that are inappropriate for them. Our legislation would build on the important new flexibility the Secretary has provided in this area. Our legislation would allow the student's IEP team to determine the appropriate test for a student, and if a special education student achieves a proficient score on this test, the student will be deemed proficient for AYP purposes. The IEP requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA--will ensure both parent involvement in this process, and increasingly higher expectations for these students. We agree with the task force that the involvement of parents and the IEP team will serve as an important safeguard to ensure that those special education students who can be assessed according to State-determined grade-level expectations will be encouraged to do so.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common-sense modifications to address the key NCLB implementation challenges facing Maine, and other States. At the same time, our legislation remains true to the important goals of NCLB, such as increasing accountability, closing the achievement gap, and improving student performance. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this landmark law during the reauthorization process.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution that would disapprove of the EPA's improperly crafted rule on mercury emissions, a rule that both the Agency's own inspector general, as well as the Government Accountability Office, have criticized.

In the wrong form, mercury is an acutely dangerous toxin that can cause serious neurodevelopmental harm, especially to children and pregnant women. Recent studies indicate that at least one in six women of childbearing age is carrying enough accumulated mercury in her body to pose risk of adverse health effects to her children, should she become pregnant.

Tragically, EPA's own scientists found that some 630,000 infants were born in the United States in the 12-month period from 1999 to 2000 with blood mercury levels higher than what are considered safe. In addition, a new study released last week by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that more than 1,500 children are born in the United States every year with mental retardation as a result of mercury exposure.

To see just how toxic mercury is, one does not have to look any farther than my home State of Maine. Every freshwater river, lake, and stream in my State is subject to a mercury advisory warning pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in these waters. While this advisory is bad enough for the many anglers who love to fish in Maine's beautiful waters, it is especially difficult for indigenous people, like those of the Penobscot Nation, for whom subsistence fishing is an important part of their culture.

Mercury is dangerous not only to people--and particularly children-- but also to wildlife. Let me cite one study conducted by researchers in my own State. The Biodiversity Research Institute in Falmouth, ME, found that mercury concentration in loon eggs increased from Western to Eastern United States. They found that mercury concentration in loon eggs in Maine was dangerously--nearly four times--higher than those found in Alaska where there is not the exposure to mercury from powerplants that we experience in Maine due to the prevailing winds.

Despite the overwhelming hazards of mercury pollution and the fact that coal-fired powerplants are the single largest source of mercury emissions in our country, the EPA inexplicably decided to remove powerplants from the list of mercury sources that must be regulated under the strictest provisions of the Clean Air Act. Instead, the EPA rule would regulate mercury emissions under a much weaker cap-and-trade program and would give the industry an extra decade to meet even this weaker emissions level. If this rule is allowed to go into effect, powerplants will be free to continue spewing unlimited amounts of toxic mercury into our air until the year 2018.

Both the EPA inspector general and the GAO have severely criticized the EPA rule. The IG found that the EPA conducted analyses in order to justify a predetermined conclusion, did not adequately analyze the impact of this rule on the health of our children, and the EPA was found by the inspector general not to have conducted the appropriate cost-benefit analysis of regulatory alternatives. The GAO found that their cost-effective mercury controls would make it possible to achieve far greater mercury emissions reductions than the EPA rule calls for.

I call on our colleagues to join me--Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, and many others--in sending this flawed rule back to the drawing board. EPA's mercury rule is not based on sound science. It does not employ the proper cost-benefit analysis. It will harm human health and the health of our environment, and it simply should not be allowed to go into effect. Our resolution, the Leahy-Collins resolution, would give the EPA the chance to fix these flaws and come back with a rule that would better protect the American people and our Nation's streams, rivers, lakes, air, and wildlife.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, on September 21, 2005, the American Occupational Therapy Association and more than 700 occupational therapy practitioners nationwide and around the world will be celebrating National School Backpack Awareness Day. They will be working with over 150,000 children to teach them how to prevent backpack-related injuries and to remain healthy and successful in school. In my home State of Maine, occupational therapists have arranged events in 15 schools and will be reaching over 5,000 students.

According to a number of studies done both internationally and in the United States, children using overloaded and improperly worn backpacks experience neck, should, and back pain and have problems with breathing and fatigue at significantly higher rates than students wearing backpacks properly and with appropriate loads. No child should regularly carry more than 15 percent of their body weight on their back. At Backpack Awareness Day events, which will be held in schools, stores, hospitals, shopping malls, and a variety of other venues, occupational therapy practitioners will ``weigh-in'' children and their backpacks to make sure that the backpacks do not surpass 15 percent of the child's body weight. The therapists will provide guidance about how to properly load and carry a backpack will also share tips about how to stay healthy and succeed in school. In Maine, these weigh-ins are being conducted in local schools from Saco to Skowhegan, and also in communities like Farmington, where Franklin Memorial Hospital is sponsoring a weigh-in as part of their Youth Health Fest.

Occupational therapy practitioners work with individuals across the lifespan. In schools occupational therapists work to modify educational environments to ensure that all students can achieve academic success. Occupational therapists provide assistance to teachers and school administrators in order to make school environments more accessible and conducive to learning. They also consult with educators to improve students' academic functioning and work to help prevent learning, mental, and physical disabilities from getting in the way of academic success. Occupational therapy practitioners in schools work directly with students, parents, and teachers to develop plans to improve students' function and productivity and to foster success and maximize their independence within the academic environment.

National School Backpack Awareness Day is a good example of how occupational therapists work within our schools and communities to promote wellness, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge their valuable contributions. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting September 21, 2005, as National School Backpack Awareness Day.