Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. This legislation takes important steps to ensure the long-term health of one of America's most beloved national parks. It would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia by $10 million; facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island Explorer bus system; and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission.

In 1986, Congress enacted legislation designating the boundary of Acadia National Park. However, many private lands were contained within the permanent authorized boundary. Congress authorized the Park to spend $9.1 million to acquire those lands from willing sellers only. While all of that money has now been spent, rising land prices have prevented the money from going as far as Congress originally intended.

There are over 100 private tracts left within the official park boundary. Nearly 20 of these tracts are currently available from willing sellers, but the park does not have the funds to purchase them. My legislation would authorize an additional $10 million to help acquire these lands. Since these lands already fall within the congressionally authorized boundary, this effort would ``fill in the holes'' at Acadia, rather than enlarging the park.

My legislation will also facilitate the development of an intermodal transportation center as part of the Island Explorer bus system. The Island Explorer has been extremely successful over its first 5 years. These low-emission propane-powered vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders since 1999. In doing so, they removed 424,000 vehicles from the park and reduced pollution by 24 tons.

Unfortunately, the system lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As a result, day use visitors do not have ready access to the Island Explorer. My legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in the planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center in Trenton, ME. This center will include parking for day users, a visitor orientation facility highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding area, and a bus maintenance garage. This center, which will be built in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, and other partners, will reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources and the visitor experience, and ensure a vibrant tourist economy.

Finally, my legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 20-year period. This commission was created by Congress in 1986 and is currently due to expire in 2006. That would be a mistake. The commission consists of three Federal representatives, three State representatives, four representatives from local towns on Mount Desert Island, three from adjacent mainland communities, and three from adjacent offshore islands. These representatives have provided invaluable advice relating to the management and development of the Park. The commission has proven its worth many times over and deserves to be extended for an additional 20 years.

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline. The park is one of Maine's most popular tourist destinations, with nearly 3 million visitors every year. While unsurpassed in beauty, the park's ecosystem is also very fragile. Unless we are careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers and Americans hold so dear.

In 11 years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought both increasing popularity and greater pressures. By providing an extra $10 million to protect sensitive lands, expanding the highly successful Island Explorer transportation system, and extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, this legislation will help make the park stronger and healthier than ever on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. This legislation takes important steps to ensure the long-term health of one of America's most beloved national parks. It would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia by $10 million; facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island Explorer bus system; and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission.

In 1986, Congress enacted legislation designating the boundary of Acadia National Park. However, many private lands were contained within the permanent authorized boundary. Congress authorized the Park to spend $9.1 million to acquire those lands from willing sellers only. While all of that money has now been spent, rising land prices have prevented the money from going as far as Congress originally intended.

There are over 100 private tracts left within the official park boundary. Nearly 20 of these tracts are currently available from willing sellers, but the park does not have the funds to purchase them. My legislation would authorize an additional $10 million to help acquire these lands. Since these lands already fall within the congressionally authorized boundary, this effort would ``fill in the holes'' at Acadia, rather than enlarging the park.

My legislation will also facilitate the development of an intermodal transportation center as part of the Island Explorer bus system. The Island Explorer has been extremely successful over its first 5 years. These low-emission propane-powered vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders since 1999. In doing so, they removed 424,000 vehicles from the park and reduced pollution by 24 tons.

Unfortunately, the system lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As a result, day use visitors do not have ready access to the Island Explorer. My legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in the planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center in Trenton, ME. This center will include parking for day users, a visitor orientation facility highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding area, and a bus maintenance garage. This center, which will be built in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maine Department of Transportation, and other partners, will reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources and the visitor experience, and ensure a vibrant tourist economy.

Finally, my legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 20-year period. This commission was created by Congress in 1986 and is currently due to expire in 2006. That would be a mistake. The commission consists of three Federal representatives, three State representatives, four representatives from local towns on Mount Desert Island, three from adjacent mainland communities, and three from adjacent offshore islands. These representatives have provided invaluable advice relating to the management and development of the Park. The commission has proven its worth many times over and deserves to be extended for an additional 20 years.

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline. The park is one of Maine's most popular tourist destinations, with nearly 3 million visitors every year. While unsurpassed in beauty, the park's ecosystem is also very fragile. Unless we are careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers and Americans hold so dear.

In 11 years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought both increasing popularity and greater pressures. By providing an extra $10 million to protect sensitive lands, expanding the highly successful Island Explorer transportation system, and extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, this legislation will help make the park stronger and healthier than ever on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Clinton on legislation that will address the persistent problems that we have experienced with the sale of inappropriate life insurance and investment products to our servicemen and women. Although these issues were newly publicized last year in a series of articles in the New York Times, these problems actually go back for decades according to a 2002 Defense Department report.

According to that report, deceptive practices have been employed to sell unnecessary and inappropriate financial products to our military for more than thirty years. Furthermore, these sales have been in violation of DoD's policies aimed at regulating the sale of commercial products on military bases.

One of the report's most alarming findings is that these practices have a ``clear and present'' effect on morale, discipline and unit integrity. It states:

Service members who have been coerced or deceived into

buying insurance on a military installation blame not only

the sales agents. The victims blame their military superiors

for placing them in a position to be misled. The trust and

respect that military leaders seek to instill in their

subordinates are clearly reduced among those who have bought

insurance that is of little or no value to them. This

adversely affects the unit integrity.

The author of this study, an Army General and lawyer, spoke to numerous victims of these deceptive sales practices. He stated in his report that these soldiers told him that they had less trust in their military superiors after these incidents. They also expressed a reduced interest in reenlisting.

With so many of our troops in harm's way, it is time for Congress to take decisive action on this matter. Although DoD has issued another set of draft regulations, it is barred by statute from implementing these reforms until this fall. Moreover, I am not convinced that merely tightening the regulation of such sales on base will have the desired outcome of significantly reducing the sale of inappropriate insurance products.

The Clinton-Collins legislation would: establish a requirement that DoD provide real financial education for service members and their spouses; provide for financial counselors at military bases; and require that junior enlisted personnel receive information on their federally provided life insurance before allotting part of their pay toward the purchase of private life insurance products.

These provisions reflect the problems and deficiencies identified by DoD's own report. Specifically, the report concluded that DoD's current personal financial education programs were inadequate, noting particularly that the education provided enlisted personnel was ``substantially less than that provided to junior officers.'' It is our belief that providing military personnel with a sound financial education and access to information is the best method of providing them and their families with the protection that they deserve.

While that report went much further in its recommendations, even recommending that such sales be barred, our legislation provides for more moderate measures in the hope that we can make real progress on this matter without resorting to extreme measures that would unfairly punish the countless ethical insurance agents who responsibly serve the military life insurance market. Instead, our legislation would give our troops the tools to protect themselves against those who engage in these abusive and deceptive sales practices.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Clinton on legislation that will address the persistent problems that we have experienced with the sale of inappropriate life insurance and investment products to our servicemen and women. Although these issues were newly publicized last year in a series of articles in the New York Times, these problems actually go back for decades according to a 2002 Defense Department report.

According to that report, deceptive practices have been employed to sell unnecessary and inappropriate financial products to our military for more than thirty years. Furthermore, these sales have been in violation of DoD's policies aimed at regulating the sale of commercial products on military bases.

One of the report's most alarming findings is that these practices have a ``clear and present'' effect on morale, discipline and unit integrity. It states:

Service members who have been coerced or deceived into

buying insurance on a military installation blame not only

the sales agents. The victims blame their military superiors

for placing them in a position to be misled. The trust and

respect that military leaders seek to instill in their

subordinates are clearly reduced among those who have bought

insurance that is of little or no value to them. This

adversely affects the unit integrity.

The author of this study, an Army General and lawyer, spoke to numerous victims of these deceptive sales practices. He stated in his report that these soldiers told him that they had less trust in their military superiors after these incidents. They also expressed a reduced interest in reenlisting.

With so many of our troops in harm's way, it is time for Congress to take decisive action on this matter. Although DoD has issued another set of draft regulations, it is barred by statute from implementing these reforms until this fall. Moreover, I am not convinced that merely tightening the regulation of such sales on base will have the desired outcome of significantly reducing the sale of inappropriate insurance products.

The Clinton-Collins legislation would: establish a requirement that DoD provide real financial education for service members and their spouses; provide for financial counselors at military bases; and require that junior enlisted personnel receive information on their federally provided life insurance before allotting part of their pay toward the purchase of private life insurance products.

These provisions reflect the problems and deficiencies identified by DoD's own report. Specifically, the report concluded that DoD's current personal financial education programs were inadequate, noting particularly that the education provided enlisted personnel was ``substantially less than that provided to junior officers.'' It is our belief that providing military personnel with a sound financial education and access to information is the best method of providing them and their families with the protection that they deserve.

While that report went much further in its recommendations, even recommending that such sales be barred, our legislation provides for more moderate measures in the hope that we can make real progress on this matter without resorting to extreme measures that would unfairly punish the countless ethical insurance agents who responsibly serve the military life insurance market. Instead, our legislation would give our troops the tools to protect themselves against those who engage in these abusive and deceptive sales practices.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this urgently needed funding for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting around the world. Specifically, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, for his commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

I particularly want to express my support for the provision dealing with DD(X) destroyers. This bill includes a critical provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy in conducting a ``one shipyard'' acquisition strategy to procure next-generation DD(X) destroyers.

The Navy serves not only as a central pillar of our Nation's military strategy, but also as a symbol of American strength abroad. It is crucial that not only do we have the most capable fleet, but also that we have sufficient numbers of ships . . . and shipbuilders . . . to meet our national security requirements.

Unfortunately, the Navy has proposed to radically change the acquisition strategy for DD(X) destroyers in such a manner as to ensure that there is only one shipyard involved in major surface combatant production. If implemented, the Navy's ill-advised proposal to go forward with a ``one shipyard'' competition for DD(X) between General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME, and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, MS, would jeopardize our national security and our industrial capacity.

We need to move forward with DD(X) at both shipyards, as originally planned. Holding a competition will inevitably delay DD(X) acquisition and increase the costs to taxpayers.

The fleet needs the capabilities of a DD(X) destroyer that will provide sustained, offensive, and precise firepower at long ranges to support forces ashore and to conduct independent attacks against land targets. These systems will provide a naval or joint task force commander with the multimission flexibility to destroy a wide variety of land targets while simultaneously countering maritime threats.

Moreover, DD(X) will take advantage of advanced stealth technologies, which will render it significantly less detectable and more survivable to enemy attack than the current class of ships. It will also operate with significantly smaller crews than current destroyers.

Conducting a competition for these ships, or implementing a ``one shipyard'' acquisition strategy further exacerbates the decline in America's shipbuilding employment that has shrunk by an overwhelming 75 percent since the late 1980s.

This supplemental appropriations bill continues to build upon the work many of my colleagues and I during the past several months to thwart the Navy's attempt to have only one shipyard capable of building DD(X)s. On March 1, I joined 19 of my Senate colleagues, in concert with Senator Lott, to send a letter to President Bush expressing our strong opposition to any ``winner take all'' competition for DD(X).

We all agreed that any instability or delay in the DD(X) program at this time could lead to the permanent exodus of skilled men and women from the last remaining shipyards that produce our complex surface combatants. Construction of surface combatants at a single shipyard would affect the Navy's ability to keep costs lower in the long term.

The recently-passed Senate budget resolution included a sense of the Senate on the acquisition DD(X) that correctly emphasized that the national security of the United States is best served by a competitive industrial base consisting of at least two shipyards capable of constructing major surface combatants.

The Congress has spoken very loudly, and very clearly on this rapid change in direction. It is in our national interest to have two major surface combatant shipyards. This appropriations bill is good for the Navy, good for our shipbuilders, and good for our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and funding for our men and women in uniform serving around the world.

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

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

Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys ecosystems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities, increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. It leads to the fragmentation of woodlots, reducing the economic viability of the remaining working forests.

No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the Virginia State Forester says that since 1992, Virginia has lost 54,000 acres of forest land per year to other uses.

The Southeastern Michigan Council of Government reported that southeastern Michigan saw a 17 percent increase in developed land between 1990 and 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry.

Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.

Understanding land ownership issues in other parts of the nation, I have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation would exempt any state where the Federal Government owns twenty-five percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program. With the twenty-five percent limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to participate in this new program. Those States, however, who are struggling most with the loss of working landscapes would be authorized to receive Federal assistance in their efforts to combat sprawl.

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

In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. Again, in 2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress provides us a further opportunity to consider this legislation and ultimately have this bill enacted.

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

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

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

Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys ecosystems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities, increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. It leads to the fragmentation of woodlots, reducing the economic viability of the remaining working forests.

No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the Virginia State Forester says that since 1992, Virginia has lost 54,000 acres of forest land per year to other uses.

The Southeastern Michigan Council of Government reported that southeastern Michigan saw a 17 percent increase in developed land between 1990 and 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry.

Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.

Understanding land ownership issues in other parts of the nation, I have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation would exempt any state where the Federal Government owns twenty-five percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program. With the twenty-five percent limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to participate in this new program. Those States, however, who are struggling most with the loss of working landscapes would be authorized to receive Federal assistance in their efforts to combat sprawl.

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

In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. Again, in 2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress provides us a further opportunity to consider this legislation and ultimately have this bill enacted.

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

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and his extraordinary ranking member for all their work to improve the quality of the intelligence upon which our policymakers, our men and women who are on the front lines, and all of us rely.

Last July, the Senate leaders assigned the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee the task of developing legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The committee I am privileged to chair devoted more than 5 months to this important and complex issue that is so crucial to the safety and well-being of the American people. We successfully accomplished our assignment with the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which the President signed into law in December.

During the committee's inquiry into how to fix the flaws in our Nation's intelligence capability that permitted so many dots to go unconnected for so long, one remedy emerged as being among the very highest priorities. Our intelligence community--15 disparate agencies and entities, each with its own expertise and experience--clearly needed one leader. The role of this leader has often been described as that of a CEO in business, a person with the ultimate authority over the operation and with the ultimate accountability for results. An even more succinct description was offered by former Secretary of State Powell at one of our committee's many hearings. He said what the intelligence community really needed was an empowered quarterback.

The new law creates the Director of National Intelligence as that empowered quarterback, with significant authority to manage the intelligence community and to transform it into, to use President Bush's term, a single unified enterprise.

I believe John Negroponte is the right person, the right leader to be that CEO, that empowered quarterback.

Ambassador Negroponte is an accomplished diplomat, which is a vital credential in the international war against terrorism. Having served very recently as our Ambassador in Iraq, he knows firsthand how important the intelligence provided is. He has been an intelligence consumer. Throughout his distinguished and varied career in service to our country, he has demonstrated strong, decisive leadership skills. These skills will be invaluable in exercising the Director of National Intelligence authorities and in carrying out the intelligence community transformation called for in our legislation.

The Ambassador's extensive experience in national security and foreign relations is a solid foundation for the weighty responsibilities he will have in this critical position. As the first DNI, Ambassador Negroponte will not only serve a critical role immediately, he will also establish the relationships and set the precedent for future DNIs. Thus, when I met with the Ambassador, I encouraged him to aggressively use the authorities we worked so hard to secure in the intelligence reform bill. One of those key authorities concerns the DNI's responsibility for determining the budget for the national intelligence program. He also will have significant authority to execute that budget and to transfer funds, if needed, to meet emerging threats and the greatest priorities.

Today, at a hearing before the Armed Services Committee on the nomination of General Hayden to be the No. 2 person to the DNI, I raised the issue with General Hayden about the need to aggressively exercise that budget authority. The law is very clear on this point, but already we have seen some signs from the Defense Department of a potential challenge to the new DNI in exercising that authority.

I think it should be very clear, through the legislative history and in our conversations today, that the DNI has a direct relationship to the heads of the National Security Agency and the other intelligence agencies that are housed within the Pentagon but serve not only the Department of Defense but all intelligence consumers. I was pleased to hear General Hayden's understanding of the extent of that authority.

Ambassador Negroponte will be the first intelligence CEO to set the community's budget, to establish community-wide intelligence gathering and analytical priorities, and to employ financial, technological, and human resources where and when they are most needed, or, as Secretary Powell might have put it, he will be calling the plays. This is an unprecedented challenge and unprecedented authority, and I am convinced John Negroponte will meet this challenge in an exemplary manner. I am convinced he understands the need to exercise that authority to the full extent of the law.

Ambassador Negroponte will provide our intelligence community with accomplished, experienced, dedicated, and needed leadership. I wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to approve this important nomination without any delay. Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this nominee so quickly to the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port Security Grants Act of 2005. This legislation would establish a dedicated grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to enhance terrorism prevention and response efforts at our ports. It would provide the resources needed to better protect the American people from attack through these vital yet still extremely vulnerable centers of our economy and points of entry.

I am very pleased that my partner in this effort, Representative Jane Harman, today is introducing the same legislation in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman knows well the vulnerability of our Nation's ports. Indeed, earlier this year, I accompanied her to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to witness first hand the incredible volume of activity that occurs at these thriving economic centers--and the incredible security challenges that they pose. Congresswoman Harman's dedication to the security of our ports and our Nation as a whole makes her one of Congress' acknowledged leaders on homeland security matters. I am pleased that we have been able to join forces on this important initiative.

Funding to date to address security needs at our ports has been woefully inadequate. The Coast Guard estimates that implementing the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and similar requirements for international port security will cost $7.3 billion over the next decade. Yet, since MTSA was enacted, only the fiscal year 2005 budget request contained a line item for this crucial need, and that at a mere $46 million. Although the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $600 million for infrastructure protection, it does not contain a dedicated line item for port security grant funding.

As a point of comparison, the Transportation Security Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget dedicates $4.9 billion for aviation security. As Dr. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in January, port security has received approximately 5 cents on the dollar--with the remaining 95 cents going to aviation security.

The legislation we propose will break the hand-to-mouth cycle that ports have faced for years. It does the following: First, it creates a competitive grant program administered by the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same office that administers the State Grant and Urban Area Security Initiative programs.

Second, under our bill, grant funds will be used to address port security

vulnerabilities identified through Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, currently required by Federal statute, or through other DDS-sanctioned vulnerability assessments. In other words, grant dollars must be spent consistent with an established plan, not through a process divorced from efforts already underway.

Authorized uses of these grant funds include: acquiring, operating, and maintaining equipment that contributes to the overall security of the port area; conducting port-wide exercises to strengthen emergency preparedness; developing joint harbor operations centers to focus resources on port area security; implementing Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans; and covering the costs of additional security personnel during times of heightened alert levels.

Third, we require DHS to prioritize efforts to promote coordination among port stakeholders and integration of port-wide security, as well as information and intelligence sharing among first responders and federal, state, and local officials.

Fourth, we authorize funding for port security grants at $400 million per year for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. This steady, dedicated stream of funding would represent a substantial down payment on the billions of dollars of port security needs identified by the Coast Guard. It is also the amount the American Association of Ports Authorities believes needs to be dedicated annually to port security in order to begin addressing serious vulnerabilities.

Under our bill, port security dollars will originate from duties collected by Customs and Border Protection, and--with exceptions made for small or extraordinary projects--recipients will be required to contribute 25 percent of the cost. This cost-sharing requirement has precedents in other transportation funding and will ensure the development of true partnerships between the federal government and grant recipients.

Fifth, our legislation includes strong accountability measures-- including audits and reporting requirements--to ensure the grant funds awarded under the bill are properly accounted for and spent as intended.

This legislation does call for a major commitment of resources. I am confident, however, that my colleagues recognize, as I do, that this commitment is fully proportional to what is at stake.

Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters through one of our 361 seaports on board some 8,555 foreign vessels, which make more than 55,000 port calls per year. Clearly, an attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system could devastate our economy.

The potential for this devastation was amply demonstrated by the 2002 West Coast dock labor dispute, which cost our economy an estimated $1 billion per day, affected operations in 29 West Coast ports, and harmed businesses throughout the country. An unanticipated and violent act against a cargo port could result in economic costs that are incalculable, not to mention a potential loss of life that would be horrifying.

Much of the discussion regarding port security revolves around the security of inbound containers. At his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated that his major concern is the introduction into the United States of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive threats via a shipping container. Secretary Chertoff is absolutely correct in identifying this as a major vulnerability.

But there are many other threats against ports. Just last month, the State Department issued a warning concerning information that terrorists may attempt to mount a maritime attack using speedboats against a Western ship, possibly in East Africa. This isn't the first instance of this type of attack--the USS Cole in 2000 and the French tanker Limberg in 2002 were both attacked by this method. The repeated use of suicide bombers and truck bombs around the world also raises great concern about our ports, and the critical infrastructure and population centers located around them.

Coming from a State with a strong maritime tradition and vital maritime industry, I am keenly aware of what is at stake. Maine has three international cargo ports. Each is a vital and multi-faceted part of our economy: State, regional, and even national.

The Port of Portland, for example, is the largest port by tonnage in New England and the largest oil port on the East Coast. Ninety percent of its foreign cargo was crude oil. In addition, Portland has a booming cruise-ship industry, a vigorous fishing fleet, and an international ferry terminal. This wide range of activity provides economic opportunity and also provides terrorism vulnerability.

It is not my intention to suggest that our security agencies and ports are at a standstill. Indeed, much has been done to improve port security. The Coast Guard's Sea Marshals program places armed units on ships at sea to ensure their safe arrival and departure. The Container Security Initiative Bureau of Customs and Border Protection works with foreign governments to target high-risk cargo and to prevent terrorists from exploiting cargo containers. Detailed information is now required on each ship and its passengers, crew, and cargo. To upgrade security at international ports, the United States worked with the International Maritime Organization for the adoption of the International Ship and Port Security Code, the first multilateral port security standard ever created.

It is, however, my intention to assert that we must do more to improve port security on the front lines--the ports that line the harbor of cities and towns along our vast coastlines, the Great Lakes, our immense inland river network and in Alaska and Hawaii.

We observed this week two anniversaries that bear upon this issue. Monday was Patriot's Day, the 230th anniversary of the ride of Paul Revere. While I am not suggesting ``one if by land, two if by sea'' be adopted as a funding formula for homeland security, that famous phrase does remind us of the bond between security and transportation that has existed since our nation's very first days.

On a far more somber note, Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of Oklahoma City. As we paused to reflect on that horrific attack, we once again were confronted with the harsh reality that terrorists--whether foreign or domestic--will strike wherever they see vulnerability.

Our seaports are vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that will help deny terrorists an opportunity to strike at a vulnerable target.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port Security Grants Act of 2005. This legislation would establish a dedicated grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to enhance terrorism prevention and response efforts at our ports. It would provide the resources needed to better protect the American people from attack through these vital yet still extremely vulnerable centers of our economy and points of entry.

I am very pleased that my partner in this effort, Representative Jane Harman, today is introducing the same legislation in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Harman knows well the vulnerability of our Nation's ports. Indeed, earlier this year, I accompanied her to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to witness first hand the incredible volume of activity that occurs at these thriving economic centers--and the incredible security challenges that they pose. Congresswoman Harman's dedication to the security of our ports and our Nation as a whole makes her one of Congress' acknowledged leaders on homeland security matters. I am pleased that we have been able to join forces on this important initiative.

Funding to date to address security needs at our ports has been woefully inadequate. The Coast Guard estimates that implementing the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act and similar requirements for international port security will cost $7.3 billion over the next decade. Yet, since MTSA was enacted, only the fiscal year 2005 budget request contained a line item for this crucial need, and that at a mere $46 million. Although the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $600 million for infrastructure protection, it does not contain a dedicated line item for port security grant funding.

As a point of comparison, the Transportation Security Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget dedicates $4.9 billion for aviation security. As Dr. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in January, port security has received approximately 5 cents on the dollar--with the remaining 95 cents going to aviation security.

The legislation we propose will break the hand-to-mouth cycle that ports have faced for years. It does the following: First, it creates a competitive grant program administered by the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same office that administers the State Grant and Urban Area Security Initiative programs.

Second, under our bill, grant funds will be used to address port security

vulnerabilities identified through Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, currently required by Federal statute, or through other DDS-sanctioned vulnerability assessments. In other words, grant dollars must be spent consistent with an established plan, not through a process divorced from efforts already underway.

Authorized uses of these grant funds include: acquiring, operating, and maintaining equipment that contributes to the overall security of the port area; conducting port-wide exercises to strengthen emergency preparedness; developing joint harbor operations centers to focus resources on port area security; implementing Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans; and covering the costs of additional security personnel during times of heightened alert levels.

Third, we require DHS to prioritize efforts to promote coordination among port stakeholders and integration of port-wide security, as well as information and intelligence sharing among first responders and federal, state, and local officials.

Fourth, we authorize funding for port security grants at $400 million per year for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. This steady, dedicated stream of funding would represent a substantial down payment on the billions of dollars of port security needs identified by the Coast Guard. It is also the amount the American Association of Ports Authorities believes needs to be dedicated annually to port security in order to begin addressing serious vulnerabilities.

Under our bill, port security dollars will originate from duties collected by Customs and Border Protection, and--with exceptions made for small or extraordinary projects--recipients will be required to contribute 25 percent of the cost. This cost-sharing requirement has precedents in other transportation funding and will ensure the development of true partnerships between the federal government and grant recipients.

Fifth, our legislation includes strong accountability measures-- including audits and reporting requirements--to ensure the grant funds awarded under the bill are properly accounted for and spent as intended.

This legislation does call for a major commitment of resources. I am confident, however, that my colleagues recognize, as I do, that this commitment is fully proportional to what is at stake.

Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters through one of our 361 seaports on board some 8,555 foreign vessels, which make more than 55,000 port calls per year. Clearly, an attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system could devastate our economy.

The potential for this devastation was amply demonstrated by the 2002 West Coast dock labor dispute, which cost our economy an estimated $1 billion per day, affected operations in 29 West Coast ports, and harmed businesses throughout the country. An unanticipated and violent act against a cargo port could result in economic costs that are incalculable, not to mention a potential loss of life that would be horrifying.

Much of the discussion regarding port security revolves around the security of inbound containers. At his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff stated that his major concern is the introduction into the United States of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive threats via a shipping container. Secretary Chertoff is absolutely correct in identifying this as a major vulnerability.

But there are many other threats against ports. Just last month, the State Department issued a warning concerning information that terrorists may attempt to mount a maritime attack using speedboats against a Western ship, possibly in East Africa. This isn't the first instance of this type of attack--the USS Cole in 2000 and the French tanker Limberg in 2002 were both attacked by this method. The repeated use of suicide bombers and truck bombs around the world also raises great concern about our ports, and the critical infrastructure and population centers located around them.

Coming from a State with a strong maritime tradition and vital maritime industry, I am keenly aware of what is at stake. Maine has three international cargo ports. Each is a vital and multi-faceted part of our economy: State, regional, and even national.

The Port of Portland, for example, is the largest port by tonnage in New England and the largest oil port on the East Coast. Ninety percent of its foreign cargo was crude oil. In addition, Portland has a booming cruise-ship industry, a vigorous fishing fleet, and an international ferry terminal. This wide range of activity provides economic opportunity and also provides terrorism vulnerability.

It is not my intention to suggest that our security agencies and ports are at a standstill. Indeed, much has been done to improve port security. The Coast Guard's Sea Marshals program places armed units on ships at sea to ensure their safe arrival and departure. The Container Security Initiative Bureau of Customs and Border Protection works with foreign governments to target high-risk cargo and to prevent terrorists from exploiting cargo containers. Detailed information is now required on each ship and its passengers, crew, and cargo. To upgrade security at international ports, the United States worked with the International Maritime Organization for the adoption of the International Ship and Port Security Code, the first multilateral port security standard ever created.

It is, however, my intention to assert that we must do more to improve port security on the front lines--the ports that line the harbor of cities and towns along our vast coastlines, the Great Lakes, our immense inland river network and in Alaska and Hawaii.

We observed this week two anniversaries that bear upon this issue. Monday was Patriot's Day, the 230th anniversary of the ride of Paul Revere. While I am not suggesting ``one if by land, two if by sea'' be adopted as a funding formula for homeland security, that famous phrase does remind us of the bond between security and transportation that has existed since our nation's very first days.

On a far more somber note, Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of Oklahoma City. As we paused to reflect on that horrific attack, we once again were confronted with the harsh reality that terrorists--whether foreign or domestic--will strike wherever they see vulnerability.

Our seaports are vulnerable. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that will help deny terrorists an opportunity to strike at a vulnerable target.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Illinois in reintroducing the Conserve by Bike Act to recognize and promote bicycling's important impact on energy savings and public health.

With America's dependence on foreign oil, it is vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make toward solving our Nation's energy challenges. The legislation we are reintroducing today would establish a Conserve by Bike pilot program that would oversee pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips into bike trips. Right now, fewer than 1 trip in 100 nationwide is by bicycle. If we could increase this statistic to 1\1/2\ trips per 100, we could save over 462 million gallons of gasoline per year, worth nearly $1 billion.

While more bike trips would benefit our energy conservation efforts, additional bicycling activity would also help improve the Nation's public health. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, fewer than one- third of Americans meet Federal recommendations to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity 5 days a week. Even more disturbing is the fact that approximately 300,000 American deaths a year are associated with obesity. By promoting biking, we are working to ensure that Americans, young and old, will increase their physical activity.

In my home State of Maine, citizen activists have led the way in encouraging their fellow Mainers to use bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation. Founded in 1992, the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, BCM, has grown substantially in its first decade plus of operation. In 1996, when BCM hired its current executive director, Jeffrey Miller, the organization had 200 individual and family memberships. Today, it has over 1,700. For a State of less than 1.3 million residents--many of them elderly--BCM's broad membership is especially impressive.

Over the years, this group has advocated increased bicycle access to Maine's roads and bridges, organized the first ``Bike to Work Day'' in our State, initiated bicycle safety education in our classrooms-- teaching more than 60,000 schoolchildren in over 500 Maine schools--and produced ``Share the Road'' public service announcements for television stations statewide, among numerous other accomplishments.

No matter how energetic, committed, and organized BCM and other bicycle activists are, however, these groups cannot accomplish their mission alone. There is an important role for Government to play in encouraging more individuals to make bicycling their alternative mode of transportation. In Maine, BCM has built strong, active partnerships with local governments and the State's Department of Transportation. These key relationships have benefitted bicyclists throughout Maine and, in doing so, have encouraged more Mainers to ride their bikes on a regular basis. Indeed, more than 4 percent of Maine's commuters currently bike or walk, ranking the State 14th in that category nationwide. I believe the Federal Government needs to become more engaged in encouraging bicycling as a means of alternative transportation, and the Conserve by Bike Act would contribute to the worthy goal of convincing more Americans to travel by bicycle.

The Senate is already on record in support of this bill. In the previous

Congress, during consideration of the Energy bill, identical legislation was accepted by voice vote as an amendment. I urge my colleagues to maintain their support for the Conserve by Bike Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Illinois in reintroducing the Conserve by Bike Act to recognize and promote bicycling's important impact on energy savings and public health.

With America's dependence on foreign oil, it is vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make toward solving our Nation's energy challenges. The legislation we are reintroducing today would establish a Conserve by Bike pilot program that would oversee pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips into bike trips. Right now, fewer than 1 trip in 100 nationwide is by bicycle. If we could increase this statistic to 1\1/2\ trips per 100, we could save over 462 million gallons of gasoline per year, worth nearly $1 billion.

While more bike trips would benefit our energy conservation efforts, additional bicycling activity would also help improve the Nation's public health. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, fewer than one- third of Americans meet Federal recommendations to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity 5 days a week. Even more disturbing is the fact that approximately 300,000 American deaths a year are associated with obesity. By promoting biking, we are working to ensure that Americans, young and old, will increase their physical activity.

In my home State of Maine, citizen activists have led the way in encouraging their fellow Mainers to use bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation. Founded in 1992, the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, BCM, has grown substantially in its first decade plus of operation. In 1996, when BCM hired its current executive director, Jeffrey Miller, the organization had 200 individual and family memberships. Today, it has over 1,700. For a State of less than 1.3 million residents--many of them elderly--BCM's broad membership is especially impressive.

Over the years, this group has advocated increased bicycle access to Maine's roads and bridges, organized the first ``Bike to Work Day'' in our State, initiated bicycle safety education in our classrooms-- teaching more than 60,000 schoolchildren in over 500 Maine schools--and produced ``Share the Road'' public service announcements for television stations statewide, among numerous other accomplishments.

No matter how energetic, committed, and organized BCM and other bicycle activists are, however, these groups cannot accomplish their mission alone. There is an important role for Government to play in encouraging more individuals to make bicycling their alternative mode of transportation. In Maine, BCM has built strong, active partnerships with local governments and the State's Department of Transportation. These key relationships have benefitted bicyclists throughout Maine and, in doing so, have encouraged more Mainers to ride their bikes on a regular basis. Indeed, more than 4 percent of Maine's commuters currently bike or walk, ranking the State 14th in that category nationwide. I believe the Federal Government needs to become more engaged in encouraging bicycling as a means of alternative transportation, and the Conserve by Bike Act would contribute to the worthy goal of convincing more Americans to travel by bicycle.

The Senate is already on record in support of this bill. In the previous

Congress, during consideration of the Energy bill, identical legislation was accepted by voice vote as an amendment. I urge my colleagues to maintain their support for the Conserve by Bike Act.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate resolution to commend Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for more than 32 years of public service. As the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which has oversight jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts, I believe that it is important to recognize the contributions of Chief Judge Wagner who will be retiring this year. As chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, she has worked closely with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on various issues related to the D.C. courts and the justice system in the District.

Chief Judge Wagner entered Federal Government service in 1973 as the first woman to be appointed General Counsel of the National Capital Housing Authority, then a Federal agency. Subsequently, she served as People's Counsel for the District of Columbia, an office created by Congress to represent the interests of utility consumers before the District of Columbia Public Service Commission and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Wagner was twice confirmed by the Senate. First, in 1977, when she was nominated by President Jimmy Carter to serve as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and again when she was nominated by President George H. W. Bush, in 1990, to serve as an Associate Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. She was later appointed, in 1994, to serve as chief judge. During her 28 years of service in the D.C. courts, she served in every division of the D.C. Superior Court, and served for two years as presiding judge of the Probate and Tax divisions. She also served on various commissions and committees, including serving as chairperson of the Committee on Selection and Tenure of Hearing Commissioners, Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, and as a member of the Superior Court Rules Committee and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission.

Chief Judge Wagner has also demonstrated a commitment to improving access to justice. To this end, she served as chairperson of the Court's Advisory Committee on Probate and Fiduciary Rules and was largely responsible for the implementation of new rules intended to streamline and clarify procedures regarding the affairs of missing, protected, and incapacitated individuals. She also served as chairperson of the Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts, which conducted a comprehensive study of bias in the courts and, under her leadership, the District of Columbia courts established the Standing Committee on Fairness and Access to the Courts to ensure racial, gender, and ethnic fairness.

More recently, under her leadership, the Court of Appeals, along with the District of Columbia Bar, the District of Columbia Bar Foundation, and the District of Columbia Consortium of Legal Service Providers, established the D.C. Access to Justice Commission, a commission that will propose ways to make lawyers and access to justice more available for poor individuals in the District of Columbia.

Chief Judge Wagner's work at the D.C. courts also extends beyond legal issues. As the space needs of the District of Columbia courts continued to grow beyond their current building, Chief Judge Wagner led the effort to examine solutions to resolve the courts continued space problems. Her efforts led the D.C. courts to plan and initiate the renovation of the Old Courthouse/City Hall in Judiciary Square, a National Historic Landmark, for the future use by the D.C. Court of Appeals. In addition, as Congress enacted new legislative mandates on the courts which further increased their space needs, under her leadership, the District of Columbia courts initiated the master planning process for the renovation and use of all court properties in Judiciary Square. This effort will result not only in the improvement of court operations, but is expected to lead to the revitalization of the Judiciary Square area in the Nation's Capital.

Chief Judge Wagner's service also extends beyond the boundaries of the District. She has served as President of the Conference of Chief Justices, an organization of chief justices and chief judges of the highest court of each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the territories, as chairperson of the Board of Directors of the National Center for State Courts, and as one of eleven members of the American Bar Association's Section on Dispute Resolution's Drafting Committee on the Uniform Mediation Act which collaborated with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in promulgating the Uniform Mediation Act, which, in 2001, was approved and recommended for enactment in all the States, to foster prompt, economical, and amicable resolution of disputes through mediation processes which promote public confidence and uniformity across state lines.

Chief Judge Wagner's dedication and service to the District of Columbia and to the judicial system are highly commendable and warrant our recognition.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by commending the Senator from Maryland for her work on this very important issue. She and I, along with Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, and many of our colleagues, have joined forces in a bipartisan way to address an issue that affects the small businesses in our States.

Many American businesses--particularly those in the hospitality, forest products, and fishery industries--rely on seasonal employees to supplement their local workers during the peak season. That is certainly true in my home State of Maine. We have many seasonal restaurants and hotels that need to greatly expand their workforces during the summer and fall months. Many of them, after fruitless efforts to hire American workers, have found that it has worked very well for them to hire in the past foreign workers under the H-2B visa program. But this year all 66,000 available H-2B visas were used up within the first few months of the fiscal year--in fact, in early January. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it would stop accepting applications for H-2B visas. This creates a particular inequity for States such as mine that have a later tourism season. By the time Maine restaurant owners, hotel owners, and other tourism- related small businesses can apply for these workers, there are no more visas.

My colleagues from Maryland and Idaho have raised very important points. These are workers who often return year after year to the same familiar family business in Maine. When their work is done, they leave and return home to their home countries. They play by the rules. The businesses play by the rules. They are not hiring people who are here illegally. They are hiring people through this special program.

Without these visas, employers are simply going to be unable to hire a sufficient number of workers to keep their businesses running during the peak season. Many of these businesses fear this year they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest and most profitable time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenues for our States.

These losses will be significant. We must help them be avoided. That is why I have worked with my colleagues in introducing the legislation upon which this amendment is based. It is the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. It would offer relief to these businesses by excluding from the cap returning foreign workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years and to address the regional inequities in the system. It would limit the number of H-2B visas that could be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to half of the total number available under the cap.

By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers across the country operating both in the winter and the summer seasons will have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much-needed workers.

Let me emphasize what, perhaps, is the most important point in this debate. That is, employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove they have tried but have been unable to locate available American workers through advertising and other means.

As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred. In Maine, as in other States, our State Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers have taken sufficient steps--including advertising--to try to find local workers to fill these positions. Indeed, that is the preference of my Maine employers. They would much rather be able to hire local workers. Indeed, they do hire local workers, but there simply are not enough local people to fill these seasonal jobs that peak during the summer and the fall.

Comprehensive, long-term solutions are necessary for this and many other immigration issues. But we have an immediate need. The summer season is fast approaching. Tourism is critical to the economy of Maine. But if the tourism businesses are not able to hire a sufficient number of workers to operate their businesses, the economy will suffer and American jobs will be lost. It is exactly as the Senator from Maryland so eloquently explained in her statement.

We need to make sure we act now to avoid a real crisis for these seasonal businesses this summer and fall.

I salute the Senator from Maryland for her work on this. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this amendment. This vehicle may not be the very best for this proposal, but we do need to act. Time is running out.