Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and mine.

Recent portrayals of the commercial fishing industry in film and in literature have provided the American public with glimpses of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living from the sea. These stories and movies merely scratch the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike, often without notice.

Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations, often as the most dangerous occupation. Between the years of 1992, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling occupational safety statistics, and 2003, 756 commercial fishing-related fatalities have been documented. This profession is roughly 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation.

Too often, commercial fishing has proved tragic throughout our coastal waters including the north Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the north Atlantic. The New England fishing community is no stranger to heartbreak. The 2004-2005 winter proved no exception, with the December 20, 2004 sinking of the Northern Edge. Five fishermen were lost during this incident, which was the worst loss of life in the New England fishing community since 1991. One fisherman, Pedro Furtado, was saved when the Northern Edge went down. Pedro was able to locate a life raft, to which he clung for half an hour in high winds and freezing temperatures before being rescued by the crew of a nearby scallop boat. This incident could have been even more tragic, if vital lifesaving safety equipment were not at hand.

Not all disasters at sea end with a loss of life. Fishermen also tell stories of dramatic rescues, stories that all have something in common: safety equipment. On February 9, 2005, a 38-foot gillnet vessel, Hollywood, sank 45 miles off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Aboard this boat were three fishermen, all of who survived. These men survived despite 40 degree water temperatures. Two of the three crew members were wearing survival suits, and they all were able to get into a life raft before the boat sank.

Tragedy has again visited the New England fishing community. This month alone, two New England vessels have sank, during a time of year that is generally not as hazardous for the industry. On the evening of July 13, the Sirius sank 25 miles south of Matinicus Island, Maine. Sadly, the captain of the Sirius was lost. Fortunately, the two remaining crew members were rescued by fellow fishermen. Just four, short days later, another fishing vessel, Princess, sank off of Chatham, Massachusetts. Fortunately, the entire crew of this vessel was rescued, due in no small part to their safety equipment.

Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish.

Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy: EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers.

When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources.

The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code.

Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his State and mine.

Recent portrayals of the commercial fishing industry in film and in literature have provided the American public with glimpses of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living from the sea. These stories and movies merely scratch the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike, often without notice.

Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations, often as the most dangerous occupation. Between the years of 1992, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling occupational safety statistics, and 2003, 756 commercial fishing-related fatalities have been documented. This profession is roughly 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation.

Too often, commercial fishing has proved tragic throughout our coastal waters including the north Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the north Atlantic. The New England fishing community is no stranger to heartbreak. The 2004-2005 winter proved no exception, with the December 20, 2004 sinking of the Northern Edge. Five fishermen were lost during this incident, which was the worst loss of life in the New England fishing community since 1991. One fisherman, Pedro Furtado, was saved when the Northern Edge went down. Pedro was able to locate a life raft, to which he clung for half an hour in high winds and freezing temperatures before being rescued by the crew of a nearby scallop boat. This incident could have been even more tragic, if vital lifesaving safety equipment were not at hand.

Not all disasters at sea end with a loss of life. Fishermen also tell stories of dramatic rescues, stories that all have something in common: safety equipment. On February 9, 2005, a 38-foot gillnet vessel, Hollywood, sank 45 miles off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Aboard this boat were three fishermen, all of who survived. These men survived despite 40 degree water temperatures. Two of the three crew members were wearing survival suits, and they all were able to get into a life raft before the boat sank.

Tragedy has again visited the New England fishing community. This month alone, two New England vessels have sank, during a time of year that is generally not as hazardous for the industry. On the evening of July 13, the Sirius sank 25 miles south of Matinicus Island, Maine. Sadly, the captain of the Sirius was lost. Fortunately, the two remaining crew members were rescued by fellow fishermen. Just four, short days later, another fishing vessel, Princess, sank off of Chatham, Massachusetts. Fortunately, the entire crew of this vessel was rescued, due in no small part to their safety equipment.

Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish.

Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink; personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy: EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers.

When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. Meeting all of these obligations is made more difficult by a regulatory framework that uses measures such as trip limits, days at sea, and gear alterations to manage our marine resources.

The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2005 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code.

Safety equipment saves lives in an occupation that has suffered far too many tragedies. By extending a tax credit for the purchase of federally required safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Mr. President, I inform the distinguished chairman that I was seeking 8 minutes to speak on the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This legislation authorizes critical programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving our country around the world--programs such as those that provide vital protective gear, military pay raises, and increased bonuses and benefits, and the advanced weapons systems on which our troops rely.

Let me thank and recognize the extraordinary efforts of our chairman of the committee and the ranking member for putting together an excellent bill. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin also for their strong commitment to our Armed Forces, to making sure that our military's needs are met.

This legislation authorizes $9.1 billion for essential shipbuilding priorities, and it includes a provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy to conduct a ``one shipyard winner-take-all'' acquisition strategy to procure the next generation of destroyers, the DD(X). Not only does this legislation fully fund the President's request for the DD(X) program, but it also provides an additional $50 million for advanced procurement of the second ship in the DD(X) class at General Dynamic's Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am, understandably, very proud of the fine work and the many contributions of the skilled shipbuilders at Bath Iron Works to our Nation's defense.

The high priorities placed on shipbuilding in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill stand in stark contrast to the House version of the Defense authorization. The House bill, unwisely and regrettably, slashes funding for the DD(X) program, in contrast to the President's budget. Moreover, it actually rescinds funding for the DD(X) that was provided last year.

Just this week, in testimony before a House Armed Services Subcommittee, the Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy must have the next generation destroyer, the DD(X). Admiral Clark, in what is undoubtedly one of his final, if not the final, appearances as Chief of Naval Operations before his retirement, stated before the subcommittee:

For the record, I am unequivocally in full support of the

DD(X) program. . . . The failure to build a next-generation

capability comes at the peril of the sons and daughters of

America's future Navy.

In response to the House addition of $2.5 billion to the shipbuilding budget to buy two additional DDG Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2006, the CNO clearly stated, ``I have enough DDGs.'' It is essential that we proceed with the DD(X) destroyer program.

The DD(X) will have high-tech capabilities that do not currently exist on the Navy's surface combatant ships. These capabilities include far greater offensive and precise firepower; advanced stealth technologies, numerous engineering and technological innovations that allow for a reduced crew size; and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems, such as a new electromagnetic rail gun.

Unfortunately, instability and dramatic changes have held back the progress on the DD(X) program. Initially, the Pentagon planned to build 12 DD(X)s over 7 years. To meet budget constraints, the Department slashed funding and now proposes to build only five DD(X)s over 7 years, even though the Chief of Naval Operations has repeatedly stated on the record before the Armed Services Committee, in both Chambers, that the warfighting requirements remain unchanged and dictate the need for the greater number--12 DD(X)s.

We have heard a lot about the cost growth in the DD(X) program and, indeed, the increase in the anticipated cost of constructing these vital destroyers is troubling to us all. But, ironically, one of the primary drivers of cost growth in shipbuilding is instability. This lack of predictability in shipbuilding funding only increases the cost to our Nation's shipbuilders because they cannot effectively and efficiently plan their workload. And, of course, ultimately, it increases the cost to the American taxpayer.

The Congress and the administration should be trying to minimize shipbuilding costs by ensuring a predictable, steadier, year-to-year level of funding. Regrettably, that has not been done.

Mr. President, the key to controlling the price of ships is to minimize fluctuations in the shipbuilding account. It is crucial that we not only have the most capable fleet but also a sufficient number of ships--and I add, shipbuilders--to meet our national security requirements. Avoiding budget spikes affords more than ships; it provides stability in Naval ship procurement planning and offers a steady workload at our shipyards.

When budget requests change so dramatically from year to year, even when the military requirement stays the same, shipbuilders cannot plan effectively, and the cost of individual ships is driven upward. The national security of our country is best served by a competitive shipbuilding industrial base, and this legislation before us today fully supports our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding employees.

This important legislation also provides much-needed funds for other national priorities. It includes an important provision that builds upon my work and the work of other committee members last year and this year to authorize an increase in the death gratuity payable to the survivors of our military who have paid the ultimate price. It also authorizes an increase in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefit. Surely, that is the least we can do for our brave service men and women.

This bill also improves care of our military by recommending a provision that would strengthen and extend health care coverage under TRICARE Prime for the children of an Active-Duty service member who dies while on active duty.

This authorization bill is good for our Navy, good for our men and women in uniform who are serving our country all around the world, and I am pleased to offer my full support.

I yield the floor.

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

I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. While I take a slightly different approach than my colleague from New Jersey, I wish to be clear that my intent is very similar to his; that is, to close loopholes in current U.S. law that allow U.S. firms to do business in terrorist nations or nations that are known to sponsor terrorism and are under U.S. sanctions.

Denying business investment to states that finance or otherwise support terrorist activities, such as Syria, Iran, or Sudan, is critical to the war on terrorism. The United States has had sanctions in place on the Iranian Government for a long time and for good reasons. These sanctions prohibit U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations from

doing business in Iran, a nation known as a state sponsor of terrorism. I fully support the use of these sanctions to deny terrorist states funding and investment from American companies.

Currently, U.S. sanctions provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibit U.S. companies from conducting business with nations that are listed on the terrorist sponsor list. The law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries of American companies from doing business with terrorist-supporting nations, as long as these subsidiaries are considered truly independent of the parent company.

There have, however, been reports that some U.S. companies have exploited this exception in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies in order to do business with such nations. The allegations are that these foreign subsidiaries are formed and incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. sanctions laws that prohibit American corporations from doing business with terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. There is no doubt that this practice cannot be allowed to continue.

I supported Senator Lautenberg's amendment last year because it was the only proposal before us to deal with this very real problem. The Senator from New Jersey has been very eloquent in speaking about this exploitation of the exceptions in the current sanctions laws. The examples that we have heard, where American firms simply create new shell corporations to execute transactions that they themselves are prohibited from engaging in, are truly outrageous. Clearly, the law does need to be tightened. But we need to be careful about how we go about addressing this problem. I have long felt that while the Senator from New Jersey is correct in his intentions, the specific language of his amendment needs improvement.

We have worked very closely--my staff and I--during the past 6 months, with the administration to draft a proposal that closes the loophole without overreaching. We must draft this measure in a manner that gets at these egregious cases that are so outrageous without overstepping the traditional legal notions of jurisdiction. Otherwise, we may find ourselves harming the war on terror rather than helping.

Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm. That foreign company may even be an American firm with a controlling interest in that foreign company, but under the law, it is still considered to be a foreign corporation.

Senator Lautenberg's proposal requires foreign subsidiaries and their parents to obey both U.S. and applicable foreign law at the same time, even if they are in conflict. Not only does this complicate our relations with other countries, it also puts U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent companies in danger of being subjected to other nations' laws in retaliation. It also raises all sorts of questions when there are conflicts in the two sets of laws. At a time when we are seeking the maximum active foreign cooperation possible in the global war against terrorism, exerting U.S. law over all foreign companies owned or controlled by U.S. firms and their foreign operations seems to be an imprudent and excessive move. The administration agrees.

Rather than simply declaring many foreign entities subject to U.S. law regardless of their particular situation, my amendment would take four strong steps to improve U.S. sanctions laws--specifically, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--without raising the concerns that come forth if we take the approach recommended by Senator Lautenberg.

First, my amendment would prohibit any action by a U.S. firm that would avoid or evade U.S. sanctions. This would clearly prohibit the creation of a new shell company for the purposes of evading U.S. sanctions, a situation that has occurred and that we need to prevent.

Second, my amendment would prohibit American firms from ``approving, facilitating or financing'' actions that would violate U.S. sanctions laws if undertaken by a U.S. firm. This would prohibit any involvement by a U.S. parent firm with an existing subsidiary that was engaged in a transaction that violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In order to comply with the law, the U.S. parent firm would need to be totally passive in any transaction. But if the American firm is, in fact, approving the actions of that foreign subsidiary that is doing business in a prohibited country or facilitating it in any way--that is a pretty broad word--or financing those prohibited actions, that would be a violation of our law.

Third, my amendment would increase the maximum penalties per violation under the act from $10,000 to $250,000 for a civil violation and from $50,000 to $500,000. For companies who think that the risk of getting caught is worth it, they will need to think again because now the penalties are sufficient that they have real bite.

Finally, our amendment would provide explicit subpoena authority to obtain records related to transactions covered by the act. Right now, there has been a difficulty in enforcing the sanctions in terms of getting the information that is needed. This would provide subpoena power.

Specifically, by increasing penalties and providing for explicit subpoena authority, I believe my amendment results in a much stronger sanctions regime but without invoking many of the concerns that have been voiced with regard to Senator Lautenberg's amendment.

Again, I want to make clear that I think the goals of the Senator from New Jersey and myself are very similar. The question is how to craft a solution that addresses the problem without overreaching and without causing the possibility of a foreign country retaliating against the American subsidiaries of that country's firm.

I believe that my amendment is the right approach to this critical problem. It will make clear that U.S. corporations cannot circumvent U.S. law. They cannot set up phony shell corporations for the purpose of evading the law. They can't direct a foreign subsidiary to do what they are prohibited from doing under our laws. It will also greatly strengthen and improve the enforcement of the law through the increase in penalties and by vesting subpoena power. At the same time, my approach is carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences that will harm our relations with our international allies.

I encourage my colleagues to support this balanced approach.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Collins amendment.

Mr. President, I have offered a second-degree amendment. I have asked for the yeas and nays on it. I believe that the floor staff is trying to set up the vote on the alternative approaches. It may well be appropriate for the Senator from Texas to go ahead while we are considering those things.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that will address the challenges facing many promising, talented young athletes from other countries who wish to play for sports teams in the United States. Due to the shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers both this year and last, many American teams who rely on these visas to recruit new talent from abroad have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. This bill would provide a commonsense solution to this problem.

Across the United States, the H-2B visa shortage has been a significant concern to many in a wide variety of industries, including hospitality, forest products, fisheries, and landscaping, to name a few. While we recently were successful in crafting a temporary, 2-year fix for the H-2B shortage, there is more still to be done. We must continue to seek permanent solutions to this problem, and to find practical ways to reduce the demand on this visa category. While there are a number of factors contributing to this high demand, among these is the extremely diverse, ``catch-all'' nature of this visa classification.

What many people do not know is that, in addition to loggers, hotel and restaurant employees, fisheries workers, landscapers, and many other types of seasonal workers, the H-2B visa category is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes. Specifically, minor league athletes--unlike their counterparts at Major League franchises-- are lumped into this same oversubscribed visa category, despite the obvious differences in the nature of the work they perform. The recent H-2B visa shortage has therefore meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation. Not only have many teams been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States, but this visa shortage has also compromised a traditional source of talent for Major League sports teams. In addition, some very talented ice skaters who have earned roles in a number of popular theatrical productions, such as Disney on Ice, have faced difficulties in coming to the United States.

In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, faced tremendous difficulties last year obtaining the H-2B visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games in September. These young athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but the shortage of H-2B visas threatened their chances of improve their skills with the MAINEiacs and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. This year, due to uncertainty about the availability of H-2B visas at the end of the fiscal year, the team has had to schedule a later season home opener. It must also attempt to schedule make-up games for the home games that the team would normally play in September. This creates a hardship on the team and its venue, and could mean fewer home games and a loss of revenue for businesses in the surrounding area. I have received a letter from the MAINEiacs, expressing the teams's support for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level 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 out 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 more than 350 talented young, foreign baseball players were prevented from coming to the U.S. last year and early this year to play for Minor League teams, a traditional proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The experience gained in the Minor Leagues is crucial to the development of the best Major League players.

The inclusion of these athletes in the H-2B visa category seems particularly unusual when you consider that Major League athletes are permitted to use an entirely different nonimmigrant visa category: the P-1 visa. This visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, 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. However, CIS 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: if an H-2B visa shortage means that promising athletes are unable to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the Minor Leagues, then they are far less likely to ever earn a Major League contract.

A simple solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which continues to strongly support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional Minor League baseball players. I would ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. As the League points out, 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 argues, is appropriate for Minor League players because these are the players that the 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 nationality. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-2B visa category so that more of those visas can be used where they are really needed.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation that will address the challenges facing many promising, talented young athletes from other countries who wish to play for sports teams in the United States. Due to the shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers both this year and last, many American teams who rely on these visas to recruit new talent from abroad have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. This bill would provide a commonsense solution to this problem.

Across the United States, the H-2B visa shortage has been a significant concern to many in a wide variety of industries, including hospitality, forest products, fisheries, and landscaping, to name a few. While we recently were successful in crafting a temporary, 2-year fix for the H-2B shortage, there is more still to be done. We must continue to seek permanent solutions to this problem, and to find practical ways to reduce the demand on this visa category. While there are a number of factors contributing to this high demand, among these is the extremely diverse, ``catch-all'' nature of this visa classification.

What many people do not know is that, in addition to loggers, hotel and restaurant employees, fisheries workers, landscapers, and many other types of seasonal workers, the H-2B visa category is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes. Specifically, minor league athletes--unlike their counterparts at Major League franchises-- are lumped into this same oversubscribed visa category, despite the obvious differences in the nature of the work they perform. The recent H-2B visa shortage has therefore meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation. Not only have many teams been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States, but this visa shortage has also compromised a traditional source of talent for Major League sports teams. In addition, some very talented ice skaters who have earned roles in a number of popular theatrical productions, such as Disney on Ice, have faced difficulties in coming to the United States.

In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, faced tremendous difficulties last year obtaining the H-2B visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games in September. These young athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but the shortage of H-2B visas threatened their chances of improve their skills with the MAINEiacs and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. This year, due to uncertainty about the availability of H-2B visas at the end of the fiscal year, the team has had to schedule a later season home opener. It must also attempt to schedule make-up games for the home games that the team would normally play in September. This creates a hardship on the team and its venue, and could mean fewer home games and a loss of revenue for businesses in the surrounding area. I have received a letter from the MAINEiacs, expressing the teams's support for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level 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 out 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 more than 350 talented young, foreign baseball players were prevented from coming to the U.S. last year and early this year to play for Minor League teams, a traditional proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues. The experience gained in the Minor Leagues is crucial to the development of the best Major League players.

The inclusion of these athletes in the H-2B visa category seems particularly unusual when you consider that Major League athletes are permitted to use an entirely different nonimmigrant visa category: the P-1 visa. This visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, 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. However, CIS 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: if an H-2B visa shortage means that promising athletes are unable to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the Minor Leagues, then they are far less likely to ever earn a Major League contract.

A simple solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which continues to strongly support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional Minor League baseball players. I would ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. As the League points out, 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 argues, is appropriate for Minor League players because these are the players that the 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 nationality. In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-2B visa category so that more of those visas can be used where they are really needed.

Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Feingold, in offering an amendment extending the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR. The Special Inspector General serves as a watchdog over the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction. It has been effective in its role, uncovering and exposing a wide range of problems with the use of taxpayer funds in Iraq. For example, in reports released on May 4, the SIGIR documented instances of files that could not be located by contract managers, contract funds that no one could account for, and failures by U.S. officials to live up to commitments made to Iraqi authorities regarding the management of funds slated to rebuild Iraq. The SIGIR also found indications of potential criminal activity in the case of the South-Central Iraq audit, where managers could not account for what happened to $96.6 million of $119.9 million that was disbursed in South-Central Iraq.

The SIGIR's tenure is currently 10 months after 80 percent of Iraqi relief and reconstruction funds are obligated, rather than expended. As a result, his term could expire well before all of the work that has been contracted has been performed and payments have been made. Current estimates are that Iraq reconstruction fund obligations could meet the 80 percent threshold very soon. The Feingold-Collins amendment would extend the SIGIR's tenure by changing the termination date to 10 months after 80 percent of the funds are expended.

As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees government contracting, I meet with and receive briefings regularly from the Inspector General on the office's ongoing work and findings. He conducts needed, on-the- ground oversight of contracts in Iraq. His audit and investigative work provides much needed transparency of these operations and demonstrates to the new Iraqi government the importance of openness and oversight to a democratic society.

Despite its effectiveness, the SIGIR office is set to begin closing down before the majority of reconstruction funds for Iraq have even been expended. We need to extend the mandate of this office to help make sure that American tax dollars are being used effectively and efficiently, and to help our reconstruction effort succeed.

Without the SIGIR's experienced oversight, I fear that we may encounter an increase in fraud, waste, and abuse in the management and administration of Iraq reconstruction contracts.

Mr. President, the Collins amendment, No. 1137, would allow the use of law enforcement terrorism prevention funds to be used for overtime costs associated with providing law enforcement operations in support of Federal agencies for increased border security and border crossing enforcement.

I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by Senator Dorgan.

There has been considerable discussion in recent months on the need to improve border security. One way to do this is to increase the number of Border Patrol Agents. But it takes significant time to recruit and train new Federal law enforcement agents. A more immediate way to improve border security is to activate our existing State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners as a back-up force in support of Federal border agents.

This is not a new idea. The Department of Homeland Security has authorized this use with different funds

in the past. Beginning with the last Federal election period up until the Presidential inauguration last January, Operation Stonegarden permitted reimbursement for State and local law enforcement activities that assisted Federal officials in securing the border.

My own State of Maine participated in that operation with a great degree of success. Arthur Cleaves, the Director of the Maine Emergency Management Agency, told me that Maine realized the Nation's second highest level of agency participation in Operation Stonegarden with 22 State, county, local, and tribal agencies involved. These dedicated law enforcement professionals assisted the Border Patrol Sector in Houlton, ME, with increased patrols, reporting of incidents, and arrests of significant persons attempting to enter the United States from Canada. In fact, according to the final report on the program's activities in Maine, more than 12 arrests of persons on Government watch lists were made by State and local law enforcement in Maine.

Now, however, the Department proposes to pull the rug out from under border States by allowing urban area grant funds to be used for such border security efforts, but not State grant funds.

This approach makes no sense whatsoever. And when my staff asked, even the Department could not explain the rationale behind the policy of allowing interior cities--but not more rural border areas--to use Federal funds to partner with State, local, and tribal law enforcement to protect our borders.

Partnering with State and local law enforcement is a proven and cost effective way to buttress our Nation's Federal border security efforts. I urge its adoption.

amendment no. 1108

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding a study of the

potential use of FM radio signals for an emergency messaging system)

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

Sec. 519. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary

of Homeland Security should conduct a study of the

feasibility of leveraging existing FM broadcast radio

infrastructure to provide a first alert, encrypted, multi-

point emergency messaging system for emergency response using

proven technology.

amendment no. 1197

(Purpose: To clarify authorization for port security grants)

On page 78, line 19 after ``based on'', insert ``risk

and''.

amendment no. 1194

(Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and

Response to proposed new inspection guidelines within 90 days of enactment that prohibit inspectors from entering into a contract with any individual or entity for whom the inspector performs an inspection for purposes of determining eligibility for assistance from the Federal

Emergency Management Agency)

At the appropriate place, insert:

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this

Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through Under

Secretary for Emergency Preparedness shall propose new

inspection guidelines that prohibit inspectors from entering

into a contract with any individual or entity for whom the

inspector performs an inspection for purposes of determining

eligibility for assistance from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

Amendment No. 1111, as Modified

Mr. President, last week we saw the terrorist attack on an ally. Our country faces very important homeland security challenges. We have been in the midst of debating important public policy issues-- how best to secure mass transit or to prepare our first responders. I cannot believe the Senate has diverted from that important debate--a debate important to Americans all across this country--and instead of finishing up the Homeland Security bill, we have diverted to debate these issues.

We should not be doing this. This is exactly why the American public holds Congress in such low esteem right now.

We should be focusing on the national security and homeland security challenges facing this Nation. We should not be engaging in this debate. I, for one, am going to vote no on both of the amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Cornyn, who is the prime cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from California, wishes to go next. If he is not going to go next, I will be happy to speak on my time. But it was my understanding he wanted to speak first.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for that clarification.

Mr. President, the Collins-Lieberman amendment has picked up a number of cosponsors, so I want to bring my colleagues up to date by reading the full list of the cosponsors of the Collins-

Lieberman amendment. They are as follows: Senators Voinovich, DeWine, Coburn, Akaka, Carper, Salazar, Coleman, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Snowe, and Dayton. I ask unanimous consent that all of those cosponsors be added to the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, my friend from California, as well as the Senator from New Jersey, have both referred to a memo the Congressional Research Service put together for Senator Lautenberg. First, let me say I have not seen this memo despite my staff repeatedly requesting a copy from Senator Lautenberg's office. The memo appears to have been widely distributed to the press but, unfortunately, the Senator has chosen not to share it with the two sponsors of the amendment.

Why would that be? Perhaps it is because the last time my colleague from New Jersey asked CRS to put together a memo attacking S. 21, we quickly discovered it was based on fatally flawed assumptions.

The memo purported to show that S. 21 would lead to less risk-based funding than under current law, but that was just plain wrong. And CRS, once the analysts talked with my staff, agreed they had made a mistake. In fact, CRS issued the memo I hold in my hand correcting the flawed conclusions of the Lautenberg memo.

I ask unanimous consent that the CRS analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I understand it, the latest CRS analysis--as I understand it from press accounts since, again, the Senator has not been willing to share it with my office--is once again flawed. It does not take into account the sliding scale minimum allocation that is included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

This sliding scale minimum distributes 10.7 percent of the funds in our bill based on population and population density. Those are two risk factors that are used by the Department of Homeland Security to distribute risk-based funds.

I note, because I want to give credit where credit is due, that the proposal for this sliding scale minimum came from our colleague, a senior member of the committee, Senator Levin of Michigan.

Let's look at the real numbers. The fact is there is a doubling in the amount of money that is based on risk under our amendment. The legislation before us emphasizes risk-based funding and doubles the amount of money compared to current law that would be allocated based on risk.

The Committee on Homeland Security has done a great deal of work on this formula. I think we see today the problems that occur when we try to write a formula not in committee, not based on careful hearings, input from all interested parties, two markups, 3 years of deliberations by the committee, but instead try to cobble together an amendment on the Senate floor.

I have heard again today the comparison that Wyoming gets more money on a per capita basis. The Senator from California, my friend and colleague, made that argument. Over and over again we hear the argument that homeland security dollars are unfairly allocated because less populous States generally get more per capita than more populous States. But the truth is, that argument does not hold water.

What is the point of that argument? That homeland security dollars should be distributed on a per capita basis rather than risk and a minimum free each State? The fact is, risk-based allocations lead to per capita disparities as well.

Let's take the District of Columbia as an example. I think every single Member of this distinguished body would agree that the District of Columbia, despite its relatively small population, is an extremely high-risk area. In fact, the District of Columbia gets by far the most on a per capita basis, nearly $217 per resident, because it is a small population, high-risk area.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument of these advocates is fewer dollars to the national capital region. The fact is, distributing funds based on risk does not necessarily lessen the per capita disparities among recipients.

We took a look at the distribution of fiscal year 2005 urban area security initiative funds which are allocated based on risk. What we found were the same or even greater levels of per capita disparities compared to an analysis of the urban areas and State grant funds combined. For example, Boston received nearly $48 per capita, where Houston, with over three times the population, received under $10 per person. Los Angeles received about $18 per capita; Pittsburgh, $29.

The point is, moving from a formula to a risk-based distribution does not necessarily bridge those per capita divides.

Second, let's look at what this is really all about. Under S. 21, the

amount the small States would be guaranteed beyond their per capita shares amounts to less than 3 percent of the funds that are allocated-- 3 percent. Let's use the real example.

S. 21 would authorize $2.9 billion for homeland security grants. The total that small States are guaranteed in excess of their per capita share is just $85.4 million out of that $2.9 billion. Here is the chart that demonstrates what this allocation is all about.

In contrast, the 19 most populous States receive some $619 million in guaranteed funds under the bill, seven times more than the less populous States are guaranteed beyond their per capita share.

In short, we are not talking about a major redistribution of homeland security dollars.

The fact is also that the potential of terrorist attacks against rural targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. I quoted yesterday the Harvard study that talked about rural areas facing unique and profound homeland security challenges. Bioterrorism, an attack on our food supply, where would those most likely occur? The food supply is outside our urban areas. A great many power grids, water supplies, nuclear plants--all of those are outside of urban areas.

Likewise, a report from the RAND Corporation, prepared for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, assessed how prepared State and local law enforcement is. It noted that homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of small communities or rural areas.

The report recognized that much of our Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets is located in rural areas.

The Department of Homeland Security said that it is well known that terrorists choose to live and train in small and rural communities.

Communities that my friends from California and New Jersey would say are at no risk, they are low risk, they should not receive risk money. These small and rural communities are where the terrorists live, train, and hide.

That is why law enforcement has overwhelmingly endorsed the Collins- Lieberman amendment. We have letters from the National Troopers Coalition, the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the United Federation of Police Officers, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

All of these groups representing law enforcement and representing our firefighters are endorsing the approach taken in the Collins-Lieberman amendment. One reason they do is for the first time we are going to have standards, we are going to tie spending to standards, and we recognize that the first responders in each and every State deserve our support.

We need to bring every State up to a minimum level of preparedness, and we are not there now. That is why the National Governors Association and the National Emergency Management Association strongly endorse our approach.

Over and over again we hear from these organizations that the funding formula proposed in the Collins-Lieberman amendment ``promotes a better level of preparedness and brings some predictability to States for planning purposes.'' That is from the National Troopers Coalition.

The Fraternal Order of Police says our legislation--this is the Collins-Lieberman legislation--recognizes the fact that the majority of Federal funds have been previously directed toward recovery response operations, too often at the expense of the efforts to prevent future attacks. Ensuring that all communities achieve and maintain the appropriate response-and-recover capacity for terrorist incidents is a critical component. However, it is the goal of law enforcement to ensure that we never have a terrorist incident to respond or recover from. We want to stop the attack before it even occurs.

Those are important advantages of the Collins-Lieberman approach. The accountability measures in our bill are absolutely critical and are missing from the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg approach.

We know there has been wasteful funding. We cannot tolerate inappropriate and wasteful spending of critical homeland security funds. That is why we have strong accountability measures in the Collins-Lieberman proposal, measures that are lacking completely from the alternative put before us today. These accountability measures will ensure that no longer will homeland security funds be spent to purchase air-conditioned garbage trucks in the State of New Jersey--that is the kind of wasteful spending that we want to guard against--or leather jackets for the District of Columbia. Instead, spending would be tied to achieving essential capabilities for our first responders to meet national preparedness goals.

This is a carefully thought out bill. It is a comprehensive bill. It reflects many hearings and input from the first responder community.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is mistaken in saying this bill provides less risk-based assistance than the legislation reported from the committee in April. It does not. The Senator is in error. It is exactly the same as the committee-reported bill, which was reported without dissent on a voice vote.

The fact is, the Collins-Lieberman amendment doubles the funds that would be distributed based on threat, risk, and consequences while maintaining a predictable and meaningful level of funding for each State.

For the Nation to be prepared, all States must achieve a baseline level of essential capabilities. The Federal Government is a partner with our State and local governments and with our 9 million first responders in this regard. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today is a regrettable and corrosive argument that is pitting urban centers against rural States. Our bill does not do that. We have carefully crafted a compromise that ensures that every State receives a baseline level in order to recognize that every State has homeland security needs and vulnerabilities and that first responders throughout the country need to be properly equipped, trained, and supported.

We know the terrorists traveled through, trained in, and stayed in rural States. Two of them left from my home State of Portland, ME, to begin their journey of devastation and death on September 11. A predictable stream of funding is essential to achieving the goals, but the fact is, S. 21 doubles the amount of money for risk-based funding compared to the current law. If one looks at this chart, the Senator from New Jersey repeatedly ignores the 10.7-percent distribution, which was Senator Levin's proposal, which means that risk-based factors account for more than 70 percent of the funding. That is more than double what is involved in current law.

So we have doubled the amount of money that would be allocated based on risk factors while maintaining a steady, predictable base line funding so that all States can achieve a level of preparedness. Again, the Senator from New Jersey----

I will be happy to yield once I conclude my explanation.

The Senator from New Jersey again ignores the amount of money in this bill that would go to the law enforcement terrorism prevention program, which would be authorized for the first time in this legislation. Prevention takes a back seat to responding to a terrorist attack, and that is why virtually every police association in this country has endorsed the Collins-Lieberman bill, virtually every one, because of our emphasis on prevention as well.

The National Association of Police Organizations wrote: Unlike other homeland security grant proposals, S. 21 ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks, not just response efforts, receives a significant share of homeland security funds.

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from New Jersey on his time or on the time of Senator Feinstein.

I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, before the Senator from California leaves the floor, let me say I admire the Senator from California, who is one of the most careful, thorough Members of this body.

The point that I was trying to make, and perhaps not as artfully as I should have, is that the Homeland Security Committee has held extensive hearings on the Homeland Security Grant Program. I am not aware of other committees in the Senate having done that. We have held extensive hearings over 3 years. We drafted a bipartisan bill. We received input from a number of groups. We have had two different markups, and the bill was reported unanimously last year, with only Senator Lautenberg in dissent this year. So our bill has had a great deal of consideration. That was the only point I was trying to make.

As the Senator knows, I have a great deal of admiration for what a careful legislator she is.

Mr. President, let me clear up a couple of misperceptions surrounding this debate. First of all, this debate is not about big States versus small States, although it certainly sounds that way.

Our amendment, for example, is cosponsored by both Senators from Ohio and, in fact, was heavily influenced by and contributed to by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I ask unanimous consent he be added as a cosponsor.

One reason our amendment bridges the small State-big State divide is that unlike the alternative amendment, the underlying bill, or current law, our amendment breaks away from a one-size-fits- all approach by establishing this sliding scale minimum allocation. Does a more populous State require more funds to achieve adequate levels of preparedness and prevention? The answer is yes, which is why the 19 most populous and densely populated States would get a higher baseline allocation than the .55 percent that other States would achieve. That includes the State of New Jersey, I would note, which receives considerably more.

Second, the underlying bill is not a middle point between the amendment that Senator Lieberman and I have offered and the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment. In fact, the underlying bill in our amendment includes substantially the same type of baseline allocation for most States. The difference is that under our amendment, the 19 most populous and densely populated States would receive a greater baseline allocation.

If you take into account the sliding scale minimum, which neither of my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken into account when they look at our bill, our amendment and the underlying bill allocates substantially the same amount of funds based on risk.

When we talk about the significance of preventing the next terrorist attack, it is important to note that terrorists have been proven to use staging areas away from the most obvious targets. So while New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are clearly targets, let us not forget that opportunities to catch terrorists, to stop them, exist in places such as Portland, ME; Norman, OK; and Norcross, GA.

As a recent publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police notes:

Several of the terrorists involved in the September 11

attacks had routine encounters with State and local law

enforcement officials in the weeks and months prior to the

attack. If State, tribal and local law enforcement officers

are adequately equipped and trained, they can be invaluable

assets in efforts to identify and apprehend suspected

terrorists before they strike.

Let's again look at some of the facts. As the 9/11 Commission report notes, terrorists trained and operated in different parts of the country to prepare for and carry out the September 11 attacks. For example, two of the terrorists were pilots and visited the flight school in Norman, OK. Norman is also where Moussaoui and another terrorist resided while attending school. Two of the terrorists stayed in Georgia, visiting such small communities as Norcross and Decatur before living in Stone Mountain, GA.

Although the 9/11 Commission found no explanation for these travels, the terrorists' mobility reveals an unpredictable pattern that shows that their presence was not confined to large cities. Over and over again, if you look at the list from the 9/11 Commission, you will see that the terrorists trained and lived in rural America, in small communities. As I have said earlier, this issue is very real to us from the Northeast, from the State of Maine in particular, because two of the terrorists started their day on 9/11 from the Portland, ME, airport.

Over and over again, we have seen, from law enforcement, warnings that we need to pay attention to prevention, and that is exactly what this bill does. Local police departments and sheriff's offices provide the bulk of law enforcement services to rural communities, and they are severely constrained by a lack of resources. That is why so many law enforcement groups have endorsed the Collins-Lieberman proposal.

There are other challenges; for example, to our food supply. But I see the Senator from Connecticut is now on the floor, so I yield to him the remaining time before we return to the Reid amendment.

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who is the chief cosponsor of the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his many contributions to this bill.

Mr. President, would the Chair inform me how much time is left on the Collins-Lieberman amendment?

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, who has played a

very important role in crafting this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield 30 more seconds to the Senator.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Let me make some concluding remarks about the impact of the amendment offered by our colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn. The fact is that the amendment would decimate the predictable funding levels for States. The minimum in the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is only .25. It is simply too low to support the efforts by States to have a predictable base level of funding each year to fund multiyear projects, such as creating interoperable communications networks, first responder training programs, or the agriterrorism project that the Midwestern Governors are eager to establish.

I will give you a couple of examples of what the differences would mean. Assuming the Senate bill's appropriation level under our amendment, the State of Georgia could plan on receiving a base amount of $15.3 million. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Georgia would be assured of getting only $2.4 million as a minimum allocation.

Under our amendment, North Carolina would receive a base of a little over $15 million. But under Feinstein-Cornyn, the State could only count on $2.4 million.

Under our amendment, Florida would receive a base amount of more than $30 million because of the sliding scale minimum. But under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Florida would only get $2.4 million.

Furthermore, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment's lack of predictable funding inhibits the ability of States to plan. Both our colleagues' amendment and the Collins-Lieberman amendment would require States to submit 3-year State homeland security plans. Yet, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment does not provide a predictable base, so such plans would not be a fruitful exercise.

For example, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment requires that the State plan include ``a prioritization of needs based on threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessment, and a description of how the State intends to address such needs at the city, county, regional, tribal, and interstate level.''

I simply fail to see how a State could satisfy these ambitious requirements without any assurances that it would receive a significant base amount of funding. Because our amendment provides States with that predictable, substantial base allocation, the 3-year plans would actually become useful roadmaps and would allow for more efficient expenditure of homeland security funds. That is why our amendment is strongly supported over the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment by the National Governors Association.

Mr. President, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment shortchanges funding dedicated to the prevention of terrorism attacks. It simply does not provide the kind of assured funding needed for law enforcement to help detect and prevent attacks before they occur. Indeed, it takes significant steps backward from what Senators Gregg and Byrd have included in the underlying bill.

The underlying bill appropriates $400 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, which provides funds for police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel to stop terrorist activity before it occurs. By contrast, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment actually swallows up the existing law enforcement terrorism prevention program, without ensuring any funds whatsoever--any funds whatsoever-- for our police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel.

In other words, all of the funding under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment could be used to prepare to respond to terrorist attacks, leaving efforts to prevent such attacks entirely up to our States and communities.

In sharp contrast, the Collins-Lieberman amendment would formally authorize the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and ensure that prevention efforts are adequately protected by treating them as a separate program with different allowable uses than response efforts. That is why the law enforcement community has overwhelmingly endorsed our amendment.

The Collins-Lieberman amendment enjoys the support of the National Troopers Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, the Association of Chiefs of Police, and the list goes on and on, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Emergency Management Association.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these and other organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there are other issues as well that are very important to comment on. Another one is that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment does not include adequate accountability measures. We know that we need tough accountability measures, such as what is included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment. Such

measures, for example, include a requirement for a GAO audit. We would also require in our amendment--in contrast to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment--that all spending be tied to achieving essential prevention and preparedness goals.

This is an important point. We cannot afford to have scarce homeland security dollars wasted on leather jackets in the District of Columbia or be used to buy air-conditioned garbage trucks for a New Jersey city. We need to make sure the expenditures are wise and appropriate, and the tough accountability measures included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment will do that.

I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is silent on an authorization level, and it doesn't attempt to restore the $900 million in cuts since fiscal year 2004. Only our amendment seeks to stop the reduction of funding for first responders by authorizing a significant level of funding. We didn't go overboard. It is a level of funding that was provided in fiscal year 2004; it is $2.9 billion.

While we are making progress every year on becoming better prepared to prevent or respond to attacks, we are a long way from completing the task. I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment excludes from risk- based funding substantially all the cities that have not received funds in the past. This is an important point. While the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment purports to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute funds as he sees fit based on risk, in reality it effectively restricts the universe of cities that could apply for risk- based funding to those that have received risk-based funding in the past. In this sense, it perpetuates the status quo.

If a city or region has not received risk-based funding in the past and then is faced with a potential threat, for example, due to the construction of a new chemical facility or another piece of critical infrastructure or because it is hosting a large event, it is out of luck; it is ineligible to apply for risk-based funding under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

Finally, let me show you the impact--on this chart in green and white--of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. The States in green are better off under the Collins-Lieberman approach--the approach supported by the occupant of the chair. It is virtually every State. I also point out that those seven states in white don't do badly. They do very well because we are doubling the amount of money that is risk-based, and we are also providing for a reasonable minimum allocation.

There it is. I hope my colleagues will consider this. A lot of work went into crafting this amendment. It is a comprehensive approach for a grant program for which we have appropriated billions of dollars, but never authorized. Let's do this right. Let's adopt the bipartisan Collins-Lieberman amendment.

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

Mr. President, during the past 3 years, we have appropriated more than $8 billion in homeland security grants, despite the fact that this program has never been properly authorized. The Homeland Security Committee has spent the last 3 years working on an authorization bill. We have produced a carefully crafted, balanced bill that is incorporated in the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

This debate is about establishing a formula that provides a predictable level of funding scaled to reflect the different needs of large and small States that will allow all States to achieve essential preparedness and prevention capabilities. We break the mold that provides a set baseline amount to each State regardless of size and needs. This debate is also about distributing more funds based on risk.

Let's put this important issue in perspective. Compared to last year, our amendment would double the amount of funds distributed based on risk. Last year only 37 percent of funds appropriated for homeland security grants were allocated based on risk. Under our amendment, more than 70 percent of the funds would be distributed based on risk or factors used now by the Department of Homeland Security to determine risk. That is a lot of discretion that we are giving to the Secretary.

I want to address the CRS memo solicited by Senator Lautenberg that was discussed this morning. It has been

used by our opponents to suggest that only 60 percent is distributed based on risk. In fact, it is more than 70 percent, as is the underlying bill. Tellingly, in a memorandum issued just today, CRS categorizes the sliding scale allocation as risk based.

This is a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, we all want more funding to be distributed on risk. The Collins-Lieberman amendment which was just adopted more than doubles the amount of money allocated based on risk. Risk is not a science. We are giving unprecedented authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, that there is no precedent for in any grant program of this size.

The fact is, under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, every State would lose at least $8 million in guaranteed funding. Some States would lose tens of millions of dollars. Even taking into account how funds have historically been distributed based on risk, 43 States lose money under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment verses the Collins-Lieberman amendment. We have to recognize that every State has vulnerabilities and needs to be brought up to a baseline ability to prepare and prevent for terrorist attacks. The Collins-Lieberman amendment was endorsed by many law enforcement groups that do not support this approach.

I urge opposition to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Highley, a civil engineering congressional fellow in Senator Pryor's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remaining duration of the debate on the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reid amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I call up the amendment No. 1142.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator Lieberman, to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Let me note at the outset my appreciation for the work that Senator

Lieberman has done on this issue. He and I have worked together with members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee for the past 3 years on this authorization to develop an improved homeland security funding approach based on extensive hearings we have held, much consultation, and hard work by our committee.

We are pleased to be joined by several cosponsors, including Senators Carper, Coleman, Akaka, Voinovich, DeWine, Bingaman, and Salazar.

The amendment we offer would for the first time authorize a framework for the billions of dollars the Department of Homeland Security allocates each year to assist first responders and State and local officials in helping to prevent terrorism and to prepare for an attack. That important point bears repeating. The more than $8 billion that Congress has appropriated for grants to States and localities for terrorism prevention and response since 9/11 has never been definitively authorized.

This is not a matter of an authorization having expired, which happens quite frequently around here, but rather of a multibillion- dollar program that has never been authorized. This is highly unusual. In fact, my staff checked with CRS, which went back a decade and could not find a single other grant program over $1 billion that has never been authorized. Sure the appropriators have borrowed a funding formula from the PATRIOT Act, although the bill before us does not use that formula, but in truth the appropriators have had to legislate the details of the Homeland Security Grant Program year after year. So, for example, the House-passed version of this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill determines the minimum allocation that each State is to receive, establishes a strict timeframe for applications to be submitted and for the Department to act on them, requires 80 percent of the grants to be passed on by States to local governments within 60 days, determines for what funds can and cannot be used, and requires grantees to submit reports on their use of funds. That is a lot of legislative language on the House-passed appropriations bills, and indeed the Senate version before us contains similar legislative provisions.

These are the kinds of programmatic decisions that Congress is supposed to determine through authorization bills, not each year anew on an appropriations bill. What Senator Lieberman and I are offering today is the specific, detailed authorization bill that this program has never had. Frankly, we would prefer not to do this, not to offer it to the appropriations bill. We believe our legislation, S. 21, which is the product of numerous legislative hearings, two markups, and input from countless interested parties and many homeland security experts, should be considered by the full Senate on its own. The House recently passed a companion measure. S. 21 is on the Senate calendar, having been reported by the Homeland Security Subcommittee without dissent on April 13. But there are no assurances that it will be brought to the Senate floor. So we are offering our authorization bill as an amendment to this appropriations measure.

Although Senate rule XVI generally prohibits authorizing on an appropriations bill, ironically there is an exception when the House has, in essence, opened the door by legislating on the matter in its own bill. That is what has happened here, so we believe that rule XVI is not implicated.

Mr. President, you may be saying, Why does this really matter? What is important about this bill that it should be brought up rather than allowing the situation to continue with slight tweaks and variations and new legislative language on the appropriations bill, year after year? Let me talk about the amendment, which is the text of S. 21 as reported, with a few changes.

The amendment establishes a new formula for distributing homeland security grant dollars. It determines how funds are to be allocated, sets criteria to ensure that the funds are spent in ways that help States and communities develop essential capabilities to prevent and respond to terrorism, and it holds grantees responsible for achieving results.

Perhaps the amendment's most important provisions are those that inject needed accountability measures into the grants process. We have all heard the horror stories about inappropriate spending of homeland security funds. This waste is intolerable, but particularly so when there are so many unmet needs that are scrambling for funds--needs where the funding simply is not available. Our amendment will put into place tough new standards to ensure that homeland security funds are spent wisely and in ways that will help us better prepare for, or respond to, or prevent a terrorist attack.

Let me refer to this chart which summarizes the accountability measures that are included in the Collins-Lieberman provisions. The first is tying spending to standards. This amendment requires that States distribute and spend homeland security funds only in ways that measurably help them meet preparedness standards and achieve essential capabilities to be determined by the Department of Homeland Security. In other words, no more spending homeland security dollars on leather jackets in the District of Columbia or air-conditioned garbage trucks in New Jersey. For that matter, even purchases of perfectly appropriate items such as hazmat suits must be tied to achieving essential capabilities set by the Department. This safeguard is designed to prevent a community from purchasing equipment that it has no reasonable expectation of needing. I know this is an issue with which the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, has been particularly concerned.

The second accountability measure is a thorough annual audit by the General Accounting Office to ensure that funds are not being wasted and that the program is working as intended.

Third is greater coordination among the many grant programs that fund prevention and response efforts. Our amendment would create a Federal interagency committee to promote coordination of homeland security grants throughout the Federal Government. In particular, this committee would focus on eliminating redundant application, planning, and reporting requirements faced by States, local governments, and first responders in applying for and executing different Federal homeland security-related grants.

Fourth are robust reporting requirements. These are the means by which accountability can be enforced. The amendment requires grant recipients to submit annual reports on their specific uses of grant funds and their progress in achieving essential capabilities. These reports would be submitted to the Secretary. The Secretary, in turn, would be required to submit an annual report to Congress, providing an accounting of how grants to States and communities are spent and an evaluation of their progress.

Fifth are the remedies for noncompliance, what I call the enforcement mechanisms. The amendment empowers the Secretary to terminate or reduce grant payments if a State or locality fails to comply with all the requirements of the grant.

In addition to these tough new accountability measures, our amendment authorizes a funding amount that is adequate and a distribution formula that is fair. This legislation dramatically increases the funds that would be distributed based on threat, risk, and consequences. It also maintains a meaningful level of funding for each State. Much of the frontline responsibility for homeland security has fallen squarely on the shoulders of our State and local officials and our Nation's more than 9 million first responders. Communities across America have risen to this challenge and developed scores of innovative homeland security strategies. For these strategies to be implemented, however, all States must achieve a baseline level of essential capabilities. At the same time, we must direct resources toward locations and facilities that are at higher levels of risk and vulnerability.

Both of these goals--helping each and every State come up to a minimum level of preparedness and targeting funds to those areas and facilities at greatest risk--require an adequate, steady, and predictable stream of Federal funding. Absent that stream, we find ourselves in an escalating argument over whether these resources are being allocated and spent properly.

Unfortunately, this argument increasingly pits our urban centers against our rural regions. We believe the bill that we have carefully crafted strikes the right balance.

Let me acknowledge the hard work of Senators Gregg and Byrd in putting together this appropriations bill. We share with them the goal of a fair formula for allocating funds to States while increasing the proportion of funds that would be distributed based on risk, but the problem is unpredictability. We ask States to prepare multiyear plans for improving their homeland security capabilities and yet each year we threaten to develop a new formula for distributing Homeland Security grant dollars. That is why in supporting our legislation, S 21, the National Governors Association underscored the need for the predictability that our amendment would provide.

On the chart behind me is a quotation from the Governor's letter. It reads as follows:

To effectively protect our states and territories from

potential terrorists events, all sectors of government must

be part of an integrated plan to prevent, deter, respond to

and recover from a terrorist act. For the plan to work, it is

essential that it be funded through a predictable and

sustainable mechanism both during its development, and in its

implementation. A minimum allocation to each state and

multiyear authorization levels of funding will provide the

predictability necessary to implement statewide plans that

will assist governors in securing our nation.

This is, after all, a partnership with first responders, with local governments, and with State governments.

Our amendment would provide the predictability States need to protect our Nation. First, our amendment authorized a sufficient level to reverse the trend of declining Homeland Security funding by authorizing the program at the fiscal year 2004 level of $2.9 billion. As the chart behind me demonstrates, funding for first responders is on the decline by $900 million from 2004 to the level proposed in the President's budget. We were reminded just last week that the war against terrorism has not been won. The battle continues. It is our first responders who are on the front lines. Do we truly believe that now, during a period of heightened alert, is the time to scale back our efforts in preventing and responding to terrorist attacks? I think not.

Our amendment also incorporates a balanced formula. Each State would be guaranteed a minimum allocation of .55 percent of the total funds appropriated for State and urban area grants. The minimum, however, is scaled so that States with larger populations and higher population densities would receive additional funds. We call this a sliding scale baseline. It will promote a level of preparedness and provide predictability. The remainder of the total funds would be distributed to States and regions based on the Secretary's determination of risk and threat.

As this chart shows, the amendment makes a grant investment in threat-based funding. It increases the proportion of risk-based funding by more than 60 percent. Moreover, under our sliding scale distribution using factors the Department of Homeland Security employs now in its risk-based approach, another 10.7 percent of appropriated funds would be allocated only to the most populous and most densely populated States.

These are important steps toward bridging that urban-rural divide, and they balance the need for predictability for bringing each State up to a minimum level of preparedness with a heightened emphasis on allocating funds based on threat, risk, and consequences.

As the ranking member on our committee well knows, since he has joined with me in all of these investigations, the choice must not be between protecting skyscrapers or farms and feedlots that provide our food supply, or chemical plants and industrial zones versus the rural communities that trucks and trains carrying those hazardous chemicals pass through. All funds beyond those necessary to cover the baseline allocations, more than 60 percent of the total, would be distributed based on the relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences faced by an area from a terrorist attack. From this funding pool, the Secretary would make threat-based grants to both States and metropolitan regions.

My colleague from Connecticut feels strongly about taking a regional approach to homeland security. In allocating the risk-based formula, the Secretary would prioritize grants with consideration given to such factors as population, population density, critical infrastructure, coastlines, international borders, previous terrorist attacks, elevated threat levels higher than the rest of the Nation, as well as other factors he deems appropriate.

While allowing judgment on the part of the Secretary, we specifically delineated some of the critical factors--the ones I just read--that the Department must take into account. In doing so, we take some of the mystery out of the black box from which DHS now seems to generate some of its funding decisions, decisions that result, for example, in Minneapolis receiving funding but not St. Paul.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the urban-rural argument is the assertion often made that locations outside of our largest cities have no significant homeland security needs. This is demonstrably untrue. It ignores a great deal of expertise. It ignores our history.

A recent study conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health, with coleadership by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services and participation by 26 States, shows that rural areas face unique and profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and water supplies as well as virtually our entire food supply are located outside of urban areas. Work our committee has done on agro-terrorism shows the potential threat to our food supply. In addition, rural areas have far less capacity to deal with a terrorist attack or a public health crisis.

In a letter describing its commercial equipment direct assistance program, the Department of Homeland Security itself wrote:

When they face the common threat of terrorism, the needs of

smaller jurisdictions are very different from the needs of

larger metropolitan areas. Smaller agencies confront threats

to the transportation infrastructure, agriculture, water

supplies, power grids and other critical items spread out

over a wide geographic area.

I will highlight the next statement because the events preceding September 11 show it is so true:

Terrorists may live and train in rural communities. Targets

such as pipelines and nuclear power plants are typically

located in smaller jurisdictions.

Indeed, among the most striking aspects of the report of the 9/11 Commission is the extent to which the terrorists did live, organize, and train in America's smaller communities. The contacts they had with smaller law enforcement agencies before the September 11 attacks are striking, as well.

As the committee reconstituted the movements of the terrorists after they arrived in the United States, the trail led to such places as Venice and Coral Springs, FL, Norman, OK, Falls Church, VA, Lawrenceville and Stone Mountain, GA and, of course, most personal to me, Portland, ME. It was Portland, ME from which two of the hijackers, including the ringleader, began their journey of death and destruction on September 11. It is not just the large cities that attract those who would do us harm. Indeed, often they feel more secure in hiding in our smaller cities and communities.

As we seek to ensure that our communities, large and small, are prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, we must not lose sight of the need for prevention. Our amendment ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks, not just response efforts, receives a significant share of Homeland Security funds. This is an area that law enforcement groups tell us over and over again has been neglected.

Our amendment ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks receives significant funds. It would for the first time authorize the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program which funds prevention activities by State and local law enforcement. Under the amendment, 25 percent of Homeland Security grant funding would be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention, including information sharing, target hardening, threat recognition, terrorist intervention activities, interoperable communication, and overtime expenses incurred in support of Federal homeland security efforts.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently released a report that put it very well. They warned:

In our national efforts to develop the capacity to respond

to and recover from a terrorist attack we have failed to

focus on the importance of building our capacity to prevent a

terrorist attack in the first place.

We are never going to be able to protect every single target in this country. That is why we have to pay attention to the prevention, the detection, the law enforcement side, as well as the response side.

Because of our bill's emphasis on terrorism prevention, it has been endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs Of Police, the International Union of Police Associations, the National Troopers Coalition, the United Federation of Police Officers, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives among others.

NAPO is the strongest voice supporting law enforcement officers in the United States, representing more than 236,000 sworn law enforcement officers as well as retired officers, and 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement. They, too, have pointed out in a letter to Senator Lieberman and me that we need to be sure State and local law enforcement are properly supported, trained, and equipped to prevent terrorism before it occurs.

I do not believe we can allocate Homeland Security dollars effectively and efficiently unless we listen to and learn from the advice of our law enforcement officers and other first responders. Guided by a task force of first responders, the Secretary would establish the essential capabilities I referred to earlier to ensure that first responders have the support they need.

Preventing and responding to terrorism is a national challenge, but preventing and responding to specific acts of terrorism in the urgency of the moment is a regional challenge. We saw this after the September 11 attack on the Pentagon and in New York City when first responders from outlying communities rushed in to make invaluable and heroic contributions to the rescue operation.

We saw it again in simulation at the TOPOFF 3 exercise I observed earlier this year with Senator Lieberman. This incident was a simulated explosion and chemical attack at a waterfront festival in New London, CT. The contributions by first responders from the outlying smaller communities were enormous, but their efforts were hampered by a lack of interoperable communications equipment.

Senator Lieberman and I saw some first responders who were carrying as many as three emergency radios, which slowed the evacuation of those who were playing the injured parties to hospitals throughout the region. In a real attack, these delays--that incompatibility of equipment--would have had devastating consequences.

Regional planning and coordination are essential, and our amendment would shift the focus of local funding from individual cities to metropolitan regions. Unlike the current Urban Area Security Initiative under which DHS simply announces a list of cities it has selected to fund, our amendment would establish an application process for metropolitan region funding.

In applying for funding, communities would be given considerable flexibility in forming regions that would make the most sense locally. Our amendment provides that the regions within the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas would automatically be eligible to apply, with additional regions eligible under certain circumstances.

Our amendment would also allow for regional coalitions--even those spanning multiple States--to apply for grant funding together to address common needs. I think this would lead to real breakthroughs in strategy.

Let me give you a concrete example. Several Midwestern States are joining together to take steps to prevent and, if necessary, respond to acts of agroterrorism. That is exactly the kind of project that our amendment would provide for and fund. Under current law, these States could not seek funds as a group despite the common threats they face and the common solutions they seek. Our amendment breaks out of this rigid mold to allow States, counties, cities, tribes, and other governmental units to think regionally and creatively as they seek to prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks.

Our amendment would also put the State and local homeland security planning process where it belongs, on the front end. This legislation requires State and local jurisdictions to plan for how funds will be spent before the funds arrive. Currently, much of the deliberative planning on how funds will be spent is done on the back end, only after DHS has allocated grants to States and urban areas.

Moreover--and this actually is another safeguard--our bill would require States to spend money according to State plans approved by the Department of Homeland Security. More advanced funding means funds will be spent more quickly and according to a coherent strategy.

Whenever I meet with first responders, whether it is in my home State of Maine or elsewhere, I am always struck by the fact that very few of these brave, dedicated men and women first went into law enforcement, firefighting, or emergency medical services ever thinking they would end up on the front lines of a war against terrorism. They have been handed an unprecedented and unimaginable challenge, and they have accepted it bravely and willingly. They deserve the equipment, training, planning, input, accountability, and stability that our amendment would provide. They deserve to have this critical program that is so essential to the security of our Nation properly authorized, funded, and designed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his excellent statement. We have worked very hard on this issue for the past 3 years. It is my hope that our colleagues will recognize the work that has gone into this measure, whether it is coming up with a fair and balanced--I guess that phrase maybe has weight toward it--carefully crafted formula or whether it is the accountability measures that are in the bill that I also believe are so important. Another member of our committee who has been a stalwart supporter of the bill and has worked very hard in shaping many of its provisions from his perspective as a former mayor of a major city is our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. I am very pleased he is here to speak on behalf of the bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the Collins-Lieberman amendment No. 1142: Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Harkin.

This is in addition to the cosponsors previously cited.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This legislation will strengthen our capabilities to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill we are introducing will improve communications among the various levels of government and will assist our State and local first responders in upgrading their communications equipment. I thank Senator Lieberman for his efforts in putting together this very important legislation and for working with me to make this bill a bipartisan effort.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, interoperability--the ability for emergency responders to communicate with one another during an incident--was a serious problem on 9/11. On that fateful day, the NYPD Emergency Service Unit did manage to successfully convey evacuation instructions to personnel in the North Tower after the South Tower's collapse. This was accomplished by a combination of ``1. the strength of the radios, 2. the relatively small numbers of individuals using them, and 3. use of the correct channel by all.'' On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission Report pointed out that ``the same three factors worked against successful communication among FDNY personnel. First, the radios' effectiveness was drastically reduced in the high- rise environment. Second, tactical channel 1 was simply overwhelmed by the numbers of units attempting to communicate on it at 10:00 a.m. Third, some firefighters were on the wrong channel or simply lacked radios altogether.''

In addition, a Government Accountability Office report on interoperable communications released in June 2004 notes that the lives of first responders and those they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively. That is the crux of the matter that the Lieberman-Collins bill seeks to address. A substantial barrier to effective communications, according to the GAO, is the use of incompatible wireless equipment by many agencies and levels of government when they are responding to a major emergency. From computer systems to emergency radios, the technology that should allow these different levels of government to communicate with each other too often is silenced by incompatibility. Clearly, the barrier to a truly unified effort against terrorism is a matter of both culture and equipment. This legislation will help break down that barrier.

The GAO recommends that Federal grants be used to encourage States to develop and implement plans to improve interoperable communications and that the Department of Homeland Security should establish a long-term program to coordinate these same communications upgrades throughout the Federal Government. Our legislation would do much to implement these sensible recommendations.

The National Governors Association recently released a survey of State and territorial homeland security advisors to determine their top 10 priorities and challenges facing states in the future. The number one priority was achieving interoperability in communications.

One of the most persistent messages that I hear from Maine's first responders is strong concern about the lack of compatibility in communications equipment. It remains a substantial impediment to their ability to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. For a State like mine that has the largest port by tonnage in New England, two international airports, key defense installations, hundreds of miles of coastline, and a long international border, compatible communications equipment is essential. Yet it remains an illusive goal.

Maine's firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel do an amazing job in providing aid when a neighboring town is in need. Fires, floods, and accidents are local matters in which they have great expertise and experience. Their work on the front lines in the war against terrorism is, however, a joint responsibility. Maine's first responders, along with first responders across the country, are doing their part, but they need and deserve Federal help.

It is vitally important that we assist the States in getting the right communications technology into the hands of their first responders. That would be accomplished by the interoperability grant program in this legislation. The grant program guarantees every state a share of interoperability funding and makes additional funding available for states with special needs and vulnerabilities. It is designed to get this vital funding to first responders quickly, in coordination with a statewide plan.

A recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations estimates the total cost of nationwide communications compatibility at $6.8 billion.

Our legislation authorizes a total of $3.3 billion over a 5 year period for grants dedicated to achieving communications interoperability. That is a reasonable and necessary contribution by the Federal Government to this important partnership.

The legislation will also help to identify and answer the policy and technology questions necessary to achieve interoperability. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes conducting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, (HSARPA) and establishing a Center of Excellence focused on enhancing information and

communications systems for first responders.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002, P.L. 108-458, which Senator Lieberman and I authored, directs the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in DHS to provide overall federal leadership to achieve interoperability. Our legislative initiative builds on this current policy by providing the OIC the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy and national architecture, and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts.

We must all work together to achieve interoperability for all our first responders. Coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders will be imperative if the brave men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis are to be fully prepared.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to build a better and stronger homeland security partnership with our first responders.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This legislation will strengthen our capabilities to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill we are introducing will improve communications among the various levels of government and will assist our State and local first responders in upgrading their communications equipment. I thank Senator Lieberman for his efforts in putting together this very important legislation and for working with me to make this bill a bipartisan effort.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, interoperability--the ability for emergency responders to communicate with one another during an incident--was a serious problem on 9/11. On that fateful day, the NYPD Emergency Service Unit did manage to successfully convey evacuation instructions to personnel in the North Tower after the South Tower's collapse. This was accomplished by a combination of ``1. the strength of the radios, 2. the relatively small numbers of individuals using them, and 3. use of the correct channel by all.'' On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission Report pointed out that ``the same three factors worked against successful communication among FDNY personnel. First, the radios' effectiveness was drastically reduced in the high- rise environment. Second, tactical channel 1 was simply overwhelmed by the numbers of units attempting to communicate on it at 10:00 a.m. Third, some firefighters were on the wrong channel or simply lacked radios altogether.''

In addition, a Government Accountability Office report on interoperable communications released in June 2004 notes that the lives of first responders and those they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively. That is the crux of the matter that the Lieberman-Collins bill seeks to address. A substantial barrier to effective communications, according to the GAO, is the use of incompatible wireless equipment by many agencies and levels of government when they are responding to a major emergency. From computer systems to emergency radios, the technology that should allow these different levels of government to communicate with each other too often is silenced by incompatibility. Clearly, the barrier to a truly unified effort against terrorism is a matter of both culture and equipment. This legislation will help break down that barrier.

The GAO recommends that Federal grants be used to encourage States to develop and implement plans to improve interoperable communications and that the Department of Homeland Security should establish a long-term program to coordinate these same communications upgrades throughout the Federal Government. Our legislation would do much to implement these sensible recommendations.

The National Governors Association recently released a survey of State and territorial homeland security advisors to determine their top 10 priorities and challenges facing states in the future. The number one priority was achieving interoperability in communications.

One of the most persistent messages that I hear from Maine's first responders is strong concern about the lack of compatibility in communications equipment. It remains a substantial impediment to their ability to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. For a State like mine that has the largest port by tonnage in New England, two international airports, key defense installations, hundreds of miles of coastline, and a long international border, compatible communications equipment is essential. Yet it remains an illusive goal.

Maine's firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel do an amazing job in providing aid when a neighboring town is in need. Fires, floods, and accidents are local matters in which they have great expertise and experience. Their work on the front lines in the war against terrorism is, however, a joint responsibility. Maine's first responders, along with first responders across the country, are doing their part, but they need and deserve Federal help.

It is vitally important that we assist the States in getting the right communications technology into the hands of their first responders. That would be accomplished by the interoperability grant program in this legislation. The grant program guarantees every state a share of interoperability funding and makes additional funding available for states with special needs and vulnerabilities. It is designed to get this vital funding to first responders quickly, in coordination with a statewide plan.

A recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations estimates the total cost of nationwide communications compatibility at $6.8 billion.

Our legislation authorizes a total of $3.3 billion over a 5 year period for grants dedicated to achieving communications interoperability. That is a reasonable and necessary contribution by the Federal Government to this important partnership.

The legislation will also help to identify and answer the policy and technology questions necessary to achieve interoperability. It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a comprehensive, competitive research and development program. This includes conducting research through the Directorate of Science and Technology Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, (HSARPA) and establishing a Center of Excellence focused on enhancing information and

communications systems for first responders.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002, P.L. 108-458, which Senator Lieberman and I authored, directs the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in DHS to provide overall federal leadership to achieve interoperability. Our legislative initiative builds on this current policy by providing the OIC the resources and authorities necessary to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach, develop a national strategy and national architecture, and conduct pilot programs to evaluate and validate new technology concepts.

We must all work together to achieve interoperability for all our first responders. Coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders will be imperative if the brave men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis are to be fully prepared.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to build a better and stronger homeland security partnership with our first responders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

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 45 million Americans--almost 16 percent of our population--are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

Health care coverage matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to forgo services such as periodic check ups and preventive services. As a consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially challenged.

Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through increased fees and insurance premiums.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much as 20 percent a year. These premiums have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Many small business owners are caught in a cost-squeeze: they know that if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine often exceed a family's mortgage payment. It is no wonder that as many as 150,000 Mainers are uninsured. Clearly, we must do more to make our health care system more efficient and health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, is a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable and available. The legislation's seven goals are:

No. 1. To expand access to affordable health care for small businesses;

No. 2. To make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own;

No. 3. To strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage;

No. 4. To expand access to care in rural and under-served areas;

No. 5. To increase access to affordable long-term care;

No. 6. To promote healthier lifestyles;

And No. 7, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

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 most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker. As many as 82 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 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost of often just too high.

The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers cope with rising costs by providing new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses in

negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms.

Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing Federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased number of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are not fully aware of laws that have already been enacted by both States and Federal Government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the Nation.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families.

One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health insurance coverage to an estimated six million children nationwide, including almost 13,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even so, nationwide, millions of qualified children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance.

Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. The bill authorizes new grants for States and non-profit organizations to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment efforts to ensure that all eligible children are covered. States would also have the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low- and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to strengthen our Nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over 5 years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved urban and rural communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our Nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore calls for increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

The legislation will also give the program greater flexibility by allowing National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full-time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider--for example, a dentist--on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part-time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill therefore gives the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the cost of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors--smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in

Maine's Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

Finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes States like Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the Nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending.

The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to perpetuate the gap.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 did take some significant steps toward promoting greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. The legislation we are introducing today will build on those improvements by establishing State pilot programs that reward providers of high-quality, cost efficient Medicare services. It will also establish a program to expand graduate medical education programs in rural and underserved areas of the nation.

Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing inequities in the Medicare system.