Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise in support of the amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Bayh that would extend certain tax provisions to prevent their expiration.

The Grassley-Bayh amendment contains a number of useful provisions, but one in particular that I commend to my colleagues would extend for two more years the $250 deduction provided to teachers who purchase supplies for their classrooms out of their own pockets. Senator Warner and I were the principal authors of this law.

This is a modest, but appropriate, step toward recognizing the invaluable services that teachers provide each and every day to our children and to our communities. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, a more recent survey demonstrates that they are spending even more than that. According to a report released last year by Quality Education Data, the average teacher spends more than $520 a year out of pocket on school supplies.

I have visited more than 100 schools in Maine, and everywhere I go, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies.

The teacher tax relief we passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress was a step in the right direction. As Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME, told me, ``It's a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.'' I commend the authors of this amendment for including the extension of the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit on this important piece of legislation, and I invite all of my colleagues to join us in recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

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

Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Yet, while U.S. anti-dumping laws can be currently applied to non-market economies, countervailing duty laws cannot. It is time that this was changed.

This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act.'' This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated.

Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit.

At the time our Nation's countervailing duty laws were approved in 1979, it was impracticable to apply these laws to China. In 1979, China's economy was still centrally planned, and most of its economic output was directed and controlled by the state, which set production goals, controlled prices, and allocated the country's resources. When an entire economy is controlled by the government, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what defines a government subsidy that causes harm to U.S. industries.

But beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is a far cry from being completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. Many coastal regions and coastal cities in China have been designated as so-called ``open'' cities and development zones, where there is a free market and tax and trade incentives are offered to attract foreign investment. And, of course, china has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining to the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure.

The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage.

The most glaringly obvious subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates the International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies.

Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated.

Mr. President, unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No State understands this more than my home State of Maine. According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine has lost more manufacturing jobs in the past three years than any other State.

There are many reasons for manufacturing job losses, including heavy tax and regulatory burdens. This is why I recently introduced a bill that would provide a variety of tax incentives for our Nation's manufacturers. However, without a level international playing field, tax reductions will not be enough to stop the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Industries across Maine that produce products ranging from paper to footwear to furniture are being harmed by unfair trade practices, and it is time that we put a stop to it. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

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

Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Yet, while U.S. anti-dumping laws can be currently applied to non-market economies, countervailing duty laws cannot. It is time that this was changed.

This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act.'' This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated.

Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit.

At the time our Nation's countervailing duty laws were approved in 1979, it was impracticable to apply these laws to China. In 1979, China's economy was still centrally planned, and most of its economic output was directed and controlled by the state, which set production goals, controlled prices, and allocated the country's resources. When an entire economy is controlled by the government, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what defines a government subsidy that causes harm to U.S. industries.

But beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is a far cry from being completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. Many coastal regions and coastal cities in China have been designated as so-called ``open'' cities and development zones, where there is a free market and tax and trade incentives are offered to attract foreign investment. And, of course, china has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining to the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure.

The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage.

The most glaringly obvious subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates the International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies.

Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated.

Mr. President, unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No State understands this more than my home State of Maine. According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine has lost more manufacturing jobs in the past three years than any other State.

There are many reasons for manufacturing job losses, including heavy tax and regulatory burdens. This is why I recently introduced a bill that would provide a variety of tax incentives for our Nation's manufacturers. However, without a level international playing field, tax reductions will not be enough to stop the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Industries across Maine that produce products ranging from paper to footwear to furniture are being harmed by unfair trade practices, and it is time that we put a stop to it. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The Senator from Connecticut serves as the ranking member on the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair.

We have worked very hard together on the issue of homeland security and have held many hearings during the past year to evaluate the progress that the new Department is making. But I believe the Senator's amendment is ill advised.

I strongly support increased funding to help secure our communities, but we must target those additional resources to programs that address our greatest vulnerabilities, from our ports to our borders to even our farms. We must also make sure each and every State builds and maintains a baseline level of homeland security preparedness and response capability.

The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would increase funding for many State and local homeland security programs by more than $7 billion over the President's budget request. That is simply not responsible in this fiscal climate.

I also fear if we pour that amount of additional money into the system, it will not be well and carefully spent.

Many of us met this past week with municipal officials from our home States. I heard from my municipal officials in Maine that they are spending the homeland security money that we are giving them very wisely to improve their training, to perform joint exercises, and to purchase new equipment.

Since September 11, according to Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge, Congress has appropriated some $13 billion in homeland security assistance for first responders, States, localities, and other entities. This year, the President will allocate an additional $3 billion through the Office of Domestic Preparedness for many of these programs.

I do believe we need to provide additional funding in some areas-- port security, for example, and the basic homeland security grant program--to continue to build that baseline capacity and also to address one of our biggest vulnerabilities, and that is the vulnerability of our seaports. But I believe Senator Lieberman's amendment does not target resources in the most effective manner.

Let me give a couple of examples. The Lieberman amendment provides $600 million for new biosecurity spending. The administration's budget also includes more than $100 million for a new biosurveillance initiative and makes more than $2.5 billion available in fiscal year 2005 for bioshield. I simply do not believe the additional funding that is contained in Senator Lieberman's amendment is required, given the substantial investment the President's budget already makes in biosecurity.

Again, I hope to be offering either a joint or my own version of a homeland security amendment later in the budget debate. I believe the proposal I will be putting forward better balances the need for fiscal restraint as we work to improve the security of our homeland.

I urge that the Lieberman amendment be rejected.

Mr. President, it makes no sense at all for the Federal Government to put further pressure on the oil supplies through large purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time when oil prices are at record high levels.

Through proper management of the Reserve, we can ease the economic impact drastically rising gasoline prices are having on the American family.

There are three different studies which demonstrate suspending deliveries of oil to the SPR at this time would decrease gas prices by anywhere from 10 cents to 25 cents per gallon.

I want my colleagues to know the Reserve is currently 92 percent full. So halting these deliveries will have no impact at all on our national security, but will be of great benefit to American consumers.

In addition, our legislation would transfer the savings to restore cutbacks in homeland security. We would increase the basic Homeland Security grant program our States and communities rely upon so it would be equal to the level of last year.

We would include a restoration of funding for the FIRE Act, again to last year's level. And finally, we would invest in port security which experts tell us is one of our greatest vulnerabilities. The remainder of the funding would be used for deficit reduction.

This amendment makes good common sense. It will help relieve the pressure on gasoline prices, while at the same time allowing us to devote more resources to strengthening our homeland security and reducing our deficit.

I yield back to Senator Levin any remaining time.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator Carper, to offer an amendment that will help the Governmental Affairs Committee--GAC, which I chair, report out legislation reforming the United States Postal Service.

The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900 billion industry that employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, publishing, and paper manufacturing. The health of the Postal Service is essential to thousands of companies and the millions that they employ. It is vital that we in Congress, the Postal Service, its employees, and the mailing industry work together to save and strengthen this institution on which so many Americans rely.

What many people do not realize is that the Postal Service cannot survive without fundamental reform. Last month, Comptroller General David Walker wrote to me to urge comprehensive--not incremental--reform to ensure the USPS' future viability. In a letter to me, he stressed that ``comprehensive postal reform is urgently needed'' and noted that the Postal Service's current business model ``is not well aligned with 21st century realities.'' If anything, David Walker is understating the point.

The Postal Service is faced with enormous debts. It owes $6.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury and its long-term liabilities include nearly $7 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The fact is, if the Postal Service no longer provided universal service at affordable rates, no private company could step in and fill the void. The economies simply would not work.

That is why the Governmental Affairs Committee has embarked on a deliberative effort to produce and report out legislation reforming the United States Postal Service. We have held six

hearings to date, and we are not yet finished. Once we have heard from all interested parties and gathered and analyzed as much information as possible, Senator Carper and I plan to introduce reform legislation. This amendment will help us move our bill toward enactment.

Our amendment sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate postal reform. Under the terms of the amendment, if the Governmental Affairs Committee reports out a postal reform bill that is fully offset, then the Budget Committee chairman can allocate to GAC the direct spending authority we would need to bring our bill to the floor without it being subject to a budget act point of order. It is my intent to seek only offsets for our bill that enjoy a broad, bipartisan consensus of our committee. Our amendment would permit the bill to offset direct spending increases with parallel revenue increases--say, by closing abusive tax loopholes--which is an avenue I plan to explore further. Of course, if a suitable offset cannot be found, it would be my intent to move forward nonetheless.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. President, few issues are as important to the American people than the availability of good jobs in their communities. Manufacturing jobs have long provided quality employment for generations of Americans. Today, however, we are losing these jobs at a terrible rate, and no State has been hit harder than my home State of Maine.

According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis Maine has lost more manufacturing jobs in the past 3 years than any other State in the Nation. We have lost nearly 18,000 manufacturing jobs during that period, good jobs that once provided lifelong employment to Mainers in towns such as Millinocket, Wilton, Waterville, Fort Kent, Dexter, Westbrook, and Sanford.

In response to this loss of manufacturing jobs, I have introduced legislation, the Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act, which is aimed at reinvigorating the domestic manufacturing sector, boosting the level of domestic manufacturing, and preventing the further loss of these important jobs.

Mr. President, I know this is a major problem in your State as well, and we have had many conversations on what we might do to help.

At the national level, we are finally beginning to see the economic recovery for which Americans have been longing. Third and fourth quarter gross domestic product figures are up dramatically, the best two quarters since 1984, and analysts expect the gross domestic product to grow by 5.7 percent this year, which would make 2004 the best year in the past 20 years.

But even so, I don't have to tell you that parts of our economy simply are not sharing in this good news. Nowhere is this more true than in the manufacturing sector, where we have seen a steady erosion of good jobs. The number of American manufacturing jobs has declined each year since the end of 1997. In fact, if you look at the past 84 months, since March of 1997, the number of manufacturing jobs has declined each and every month, except for 7.

This loss of jobs has occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so this is not a partisan issue. The final 3 years of the Clinton administration saw 27 months of manufacturing job losses, and the greatest single monthly decline in manufacturing jobs occurred in July of 1998 when 219,000 American manufacturing jobs disappeared.

As I mentioned, nowhere is the reality of this job loss in the manufacturing sector more acute than in my home State of Maine. The job losses during the past 3 years in the manufacturing sector in Maine represent more than 22 percent of my State's total manufacturing employment, a higher percentage of manufacturing jobs lost than in any other State.

Why are American manufacturing jobs disappearing? According to a new study conducted for the National Association of Manufacturers, one answer is the disparity in manufacturing costs in the United States versus other countries. In fact, compared to other countries, it costs an average of 22 percent more to manufacture goods here.

While it would surprise no one that American manufacturers face higher costs of doing business than manufacturers in countries such as China or Mexico, it would be a mistake to assume that wage rates alone explain those differences. They do not. In fact, the productivity of the American worker is unrivaled, allowing American workers to receive more value in wages for the goods they produce.

As the NAM study indicates, if wages were the only factor, then U.S. manufacturers would be far more dominant in the global markets than the current trade situation suggests.

It is other structural costs, such as the high corporate tax rate we impose on manufacturers, that make it more expensive to manufacture goods in the United States relative to the costs elsewhere. Indeed, the NAM study shows it is significantly cheaper to produce goods, even in high-wage industrialized countries such as Japan and France. This fact illustrates the critical impact these high structural costs have on manufacturers in the United States.

In essence, these costs have the same effect as a tax, as imposing a 22-percent additional tax on the cost of making goods here rather than overseas. To compete, American manufacturers must somehow do more with less, move operations overseas, or get out of manufacturing altogether. The end result is fewer jobs, a weaker economy, and a manufacturing sector in crisis.

I believe a healthy manufacturing base is essential to our Nation's future. Not only is manufacturing a key source of skilled high-paying jobs, but it is also critical to our economic and national security that we have the ability to manufacture the goods we need in this country.

For all of these reasons, I am proposing the Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act. This bill would eliminate that 22-percent cost differential that American manufacturers face by providing a variety of tax incentives. For example, a jobs tax credit would be provided to manufacturers that employ displaced workers who are receiving trade adjustment assistance. That would help get those workers back to work.

In Maine alone, nearly 60 manufacturers are currently TAA-certified, and more than 4,200 Maine workers have been deemed eligible for benefits under TAA since the beginning of 2002. The credit would only be available to manufacturers that increase their employment level. The availability of this credit would be a powerful incentive to hire workers who are receiving benefits because they have been displaced.

As important as it is to assist workers who are eligible for benefits under trade adjustment assistance, however, this alone is not sufficient to address the crisis facing America's manufacturers. That is why my bill also includes a 2-year, across-the-board deduction of 9 percent on domestic manufacturing income, a tax break that would not be available for income earned on overseas operations. This, too, would be a powerful incentive, a powerful tax break, to help encourage manufacturers to keep their operations in America. It would help offset that disparity in costs.

In Maine, the sector that provides the most manufacturing jobs is the forest products industry, an industry that is struggling. Paper plant after paper plant in Maine has been laying off workers or closing down altogether, hurting our economy and leaving thousands of hard-working skilled workers without jobs.

My proposal includes provisions to encourage the recovery of the forest products industry, which is critically important not only to my State but to many other States, as well.

My bill, for example, provides a tax credit for reforestation expenses and changes the tax treatment for wood harvested on nonindustrial woodlots. These changes would both encourage sound forestry stewardship practices and also increase the wood supply by removing artificial barriers to sound woodlot management. Taken together,

these provisions will help to ensure an affordable, reliable wood supply upon which so many manufacturing jobs in Maine depend.

Finally, this bill is designed to ensure that only companies that are helping to build America's manufacturing base obtain its benefits. It has both a carrot and a stick approach. Companies that move jobs offshore will see their benefits reduced. For example, they will not be able to claim that 9-percent deduction on operations that are located in the United States. Companies that choose to invert their corporate structure altogether in order to avoid U.S. taxes will not be eligible for this credit at all.

The crisis in the manufacturing sector demands our attention. It did not start yesterday, and it will not be resolved tomorrow. Solutions can and should be sought today.

The bill I have introduced is a good start, but additional remedies are needed. Manufacturing jobs arise in part because some of our trading partners simply do not play by the rules. The Presiding Officer has been a leader in this area. Our Nation's manufacturers can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other help to their manufacturers.

I hear from manufacturers in my State time and again whose efforts to compete successfully in a global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of the illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as China. That is why I will soon be introducing a second bill that will help ensure that nations such as China are held fully accountable for their actions by our trade remedy laws. Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs.

I am hopeful that working together on this and other legislative and administrative proposals, we can take the important steps needed to strengthen American manufacturers, to preserve our manufacturing capacity, and most of all, to help ensure that hard-working Americans have the jobs they need and deserve.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than one million Americans with Type 1, or juvenile diabetes. The legislation is similar to the bipartisan bill, S. 518, which we introduced last year and which attracted 52 cosponsors.

As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. The burden of juvenile diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young people. It is the second most common disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's own immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. As a consequence, people with juvenile diabetes require daily insulin injections for survival. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure. People with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening conditions such as kidney failure, blindness or amputation, as well as a dramatic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the ``Edmonton Protocol,'' an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1920. Pancreatic islet cell transplantation has been performed on nearly 300 individuals to date, and the majority of them no longer need to take insulin to stay alive. Significant research questions, however, remain to be answered if we are to make certain that the procedure is appropriate for everyone who suffers from juvenile diabetes.

There are also non-scientific barriers to expanding islet cell transplantation, and the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004 addresses some of them. We were extremely pleased that a key component of S. 518 was included in the Medicare reform bill signed into law last year. That provision authorized a Medicare demonstration project to test the efficacy of pancreatic islet cell transplants for individuals with juvenile diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease.

The legislation we are introducing today includes the remaining two provisions from last year's legislation that were not included in the Medicare bill. These two provisions are intended to increase the supply of pancreata for islet cell transplantation and to improve the coordination of federal efforts and information regarding islet cell transplantation.

There currently are only about 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively. To increase the supply of available pancreases, our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to grant credit to organ procurement organizations (OPOs)--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

Finally, to provide a more focused effort in the are of islet cell transplantation, our legislation requires the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee at the National Institutes of Health to include in its annual report an assessment of the Federal activities and programs related to islet cell transplantation and to make recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that might increase the supply of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than one million Americans with Type 1, or juvenile diabetes. The legislation is similar to the bipartisan bill, S. 518, which we introduced last year and which attracted 52 cosponsors.

As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. The burden of juvenile diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young people. It is the second most common disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's own immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. As a consequence, people with juvenile diabetes require daily insulin injections for survival. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure. People with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening conditions such as kidney failure, blindness or amputation, as well as a dramatic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the ``Edmonton Protocol,'' an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1920. Pancreatic islet cell transplantation has been performed on nearly 300 individuals to date, and the majority of them no longer need to take insulin to stay alive. Significant research questions, however, remain to be answered if we are to make certain that the procedure is appropriate for everyone who suffers from juvenile diabetes.

There are also non-scientific barriers to expanding islet cell transplantation, and the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004 addresses some of them. We were extremely pleased that a key component of S. 518 was included in the Medicare reform bill signed into law last year. That provision authorized a Medicare demonstration project to test the efficacy of pancreatic islet cell transplants for individuals with juvenile diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease.

The legislation we are introducing today includes the remaining two provisions from last year's legislation that were not included in the Medicare bill. These two provisions are intended to increase the supply of pancreata for islet cell transplantation and to improve the coordination of federal efforts and information regarding islet cell transplantation.

There currently are only about 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively. To increase the supply of available pancreases, our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to grant credit to organ procurement organizations (OPOs)--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

Finally, to provide a more focused effort in the are of islet cell transplantation, our legislation requires the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee at the National Institutes of Health to include in its annual report an assessment of the Federal activities and programs related to islet cell transplantation and to make recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that might increase the supply of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, it has been nearly 2\1/2\ years since a monstrous act of war was committed against the United States. The American people responded to the attacks of September 11 with courage-- courage that was evident that horrible day in the heroic actions of the passengers on Flight 93, in the firefighters and police officers at Ground Zero, and in the Pentagon employees who led their co-workers to safety through fire, smoke, and rubble.

That courage is evident today in the men and women of our Armed Forces on the front lines in the war on terrorism and in the ordinary Americans

across the country who carry on normal, productive lives, refusing to be terrorized by terrorism.

President Bush and Congress responded by recognizing that this was a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. Together we saw that this enemy used as a weapon the freedom and openness that Americans cherish but that it despises. We realized that our efforts to defend our Nation against this unconventional and unprincipled enemy were hampered by the lack of a unified strategy. To revisit a phrase used so often in the aftermath of September 11, we were not connecting the dots. We knew that turf battles, communication gaps, and interagency rivalries could no longer be tolerated. The stakes were too high.

The Department of Homeland Security is perhaps the most significant manifestation of the efforts undertaken by the President and Congress to create that unified strategy, to connect those dots, to coordinate this urgent new mission. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I chair, played a key role in creating the department and is helping it to succeed.

My committee swiftly confirmed eight talented and dedicated individuals to lead the department, including Secretary Ridge himself. We have held hearings and investigations on a wide range of homeland security issues, from the President's plan to better coordinate intelligence analysis and sharing, to unraveling the tangled web of international terrorism financing, to protecting American agriculture from sabotage, to securing our seaports. We have approved bills to reform the department's multi-billion dollar State grant program, to provide cutting edge technology to first responders, to help the department attract talented individuals with sought-after skills, and to ensure accountability within DHS's financial system.

Now the department is 1 year old. And in the span of just 1 year, the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Tom Ridge, has made significant, even remarkable, progress.

The melding of 22 Federal agencies and 180,000 employees has occurred with some of the resistance we all expected but without the widespread turf battles many predicted. The level of cooperation and coordination within this new department, though not perfect, is a vast improvement over the previous, ad hoc structure. The initial focus upon airport security has been expanded to include other vulnerabilities, such as seaport and border security. The department has distributed billions of dollars to our first responders--the local and State emergency personnel on the front lines--for the equipment, training and guidance to carry out their vital missions. And we will continue to work with Secretary Ridge to ensure that a steady stream of funding is available for those efforts.

Of course, challenges lie ahead for this new agency, for the President and for this Congress. As we change, so does our enemy. As we address vulnerabilities, he seeks out new ones to exploit. As we move to protect our most high-profile targets in our major cities, we must always be aware that our small cities, towns and countryside are at risk as well. As we improve security at our borders, we must strive to keep them open to friendship and to commerce. As we defend our Nation against future attacks, we must never sacrifice the liberty that makes our Nation so worthy of being defended.

In an address given February 23 before the Homeland Security Institute, Secretary Ridge offered a first anniversary assessment of his department's accomplishments. He charted an ambitious but necessary course for its second year, and he described his vision for the years ahead.

Secretary Ridge pledge that the department will pursue the development of new technologies to combat terrorism. Analysis tools and detection equipment are keys to thwarting nuclear, chemical and biological attacks before they occur. We must, as he said, button up our lab coats and push the scientific envelope by forging new partnerships among government, the private sector, national laboratories and university research centers.

The Secretary pledged to strengthen information sharing among the public and private sectors and to create standards for communications and equipment. ``Interoperability'' is a cumbersome word, but it is one we all should add to our vocabularies. Only by improving communications and ensuring that equipment works across jurisdictions will our front- line defenders and our first responders be able to better detect attacks and to coordinate their efforts during an emergency.

Secretary Ridge pledged to integrate our port and border security systems in a way that does not impede the flow of trade and travel across our borders, a critical goal for border States like Maine. The department's first year produced much progress: screeners, air marshals and state-of-the-art technology have made air travel safer. Traffic through our ports and our borders, which nearly ground to a halt after the attacks, is moving with speed, efficiency and greater security: more than 500 million people, 130 million motor vehicles, and millions more railcars and containers are processed at our borders every year. At the same time, container inspection has been expanded from our own shores to 16 key overseas ports.

Borders will always be a point of vulnerability for any free society. In partnership with the private sector and our international allies, we can reduce that vulnerability without unduly impeding the flow of legitimate commerce.

The Committee on Governmental Affairs stands ready to assist the Department as it begins its second year. We will continue to provide the department with the authority it needs to protect our Nation, and we will continue our aggressive oversight of its programs and activities. At times, we may disagree with the department, but our goal is always to improve the department and to recognize the extraordinary progress made by Secretary Ridge and Deputy Security Loy, their talented leadership team, and the dedicated men and women in the department who work each and every day to strengthen our security.

Mr. President, as the Senate begins consideration of the transportation legislation, let me first commend the distinguished managers of this bill, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Reid for their efforts to bring this vital 6-year reauthorization bill to the Senate floor. I particularly wish to recognize the efforts of Senator Bond. He has been a tireless champion of improving the transportation infrastructure in this country. He has worked night and day to craft a well-balanced bill. I hope we can move forward in considering this bill without undue delay.

This legislation would be very beneficial for the people of Maine and for our national economy. Nationwide, our transportation system is the lifeblood of economic development, the catalyst for the creation of thousands of jobs. Our transportation system affects our competitiveness, both within the United States and competing internationally.

For our economy to prosper, we need an integrated modern transportation system that realizes our goal of cost-effective and efficient modes of transportation while also recognizing the need for continued progress in improving the quality of our air. That is why I have not only supported funding for our highways and our bridges, but also I have advocated increased Federal funding for mass transit, for passenger rail initiatives, and alternative means of transportation as well.

In a large rural State such as Maine, an effective transportation network is absolutely essential. Maine has 1.3 million people spread out across roughly 34,000 square miles. Our State has by far the lowest population density in all of New England. Consequently, continuing to upgrade and improve our roads, highways, and bridges is essential to Maine's future prosperity. It is also a vital part of the economic strategies in our State that are aimed at increasing job opportunities for all of our citizens.

It is my hope that the Federal funding that is included in this legislation will support a strong partnership with the States that will allow us to build, repair, and maintain our surface transportation system into the 21st century.

The bill would also allow us to pursue some high priority transportation projects over the next 6 years. For example, as a native of Aroostook County in northern Maine, I understand how important it is to construct a north-south highway, a modern limited access highway through Aroostook County. This project has been in the works for more than 20 years. The interstate, when it was first constructed, for some reason stopped at Houlton, ME, rather than going through Aroostook County to the Canadian border. For that reason there have been economic development projects underway for some time, calling on us to construct a north-south highway to the Canadian border.

This project has been funded through the preconstruction stages and is currently undergoing the necessary review to complete the required environmental impact statement.

Northern Maine desperately needs the transportation and safety improvements such a highway would bring. For this reason I have made it my top transportation priority since being elected to the Senate in 1996. I hope the higher funding levels authorized by this legislation will enable the State of Maine to continue moving this vitally important project forward to the construction phase.

Just as I believe that the Aroostook highway project is critical for the transportation system and the economy of northern Maine, I also believe that an east-west highway, potentially running from the maritime provinces in Canada through eastern, central, and western Maine, to Quebec and northern New York State would significantly boost economic growth, job creation, and development throughout the entire region. This is an important transportation project, not only for that region of Maine but also for our Canadian neighbors.

Maine, like many other States in the Northeast, is facing an aging transportation infrastructure. It requires maintenance, rehabilitation, and in some cases outright replacement. The most urgent example of this problem is the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, a major suspension bridge that carries U.S. Route 1 over the Penobscot River, south of Bangor, and acts as a gateway to downeast Maine, one of the State's most widely visited regions.

The nearest alternative for crossing the Penobscot River is some 20 miles away in Bangor, and any interruption in the service would thus require a detour of at least 40 miles.

Unfortunately, due to safety concerns, last summer the State Department of Transportation had to lower the weight limits for vehicles using this bridge. The condition of the bridge has been declining steadily for a number of years, and despite efforts by the State to rehabilitate the existing structure, it has now become evident that the bridge must be replaced as soon as possible.

While providing States with adequate funding to move forward with high priority projects such as the east-west highway, the Hancock-Waldo bridge, and the Aroostook highway, as well as the funding of other more routine highway and transit projects as a major focus of this legislation, I also see this bill as an opportunity to address some important transportation safety issues.

The most pressing transportation safety issue in my State has to do with Federal truck weight limits.

Under current law, trucks weighing as much as 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95 from the border of Maine with New Hampshire, to Augusta, our capital city. At that point, right before Augusta, trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds are forced off Interstate 95, which proceeds north to Houlton. Heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through our cities, our towns, and our villages.

Augusta is an example of the problems this creates. When the trucks leave the interstate, they frequently travel down Western Avenue to encounter two heavily traveled traffic circles. These traffic circles have some of the highest accident rates in our State, and having these large, heavy trucks travel through the congestion of Western Avenue, around these two traffic circles and then continue on secondary roads poses a serious safety threat.

A uniform truck weight of 100,000 pounds on all of Interstate 95 in Maine would reduce highway miles and travel times necessary to economically and efficiently transport freight throughout Maine that would result in both economic and environmental benefits.

Moreover, Maine's extensive network of State and local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. But most importantly, as I indicated with my example of the traffic circles in Augusta, ME, a uniform truck weight limit on the interstate would keep trucks on the interstate, which is designed to handle heavy trucks. That is where they belong rather than on the roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are diverted from the interstate and onto local roads.

Senator Snowe and I have an initiative to deal with this issue. We hope to work closely with the managers of the bill to address this very important traffic safety issue.

With 3,400 miles of coastline and 14 inhabited islands, there is another very important feature of transportation that affects my constituents. The Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program is vitally important to the Maine State Ferry Service and the Casco Bay Island's Transit District, which provide critical transportation services to Maine's island communities. I have joined with my colleague, Senator Murray, and a bipartisan group of Senators in sponsoring the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, which would significantly increase funding that is available for ferry projects. We hope to pursue this proposal as the debate on this important legislation continues.

While this highway reauthorization legislation includes funding for traditional transportation programs, I am also pleased that it includes increased funding for both transportation enhancements and the Recreational Trails Program. Both have allowed States to greatly expand their bicycle path systems.

In Maine, for example, 94 bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways have been built with funding from these special programs.

I also believe that it is in our national interest to pursue and strengthen passenger rail services in the United States and to help maintain the solvency of Amtrak, even as we put reforms in place. Currently, there is no long-term stable funding source for passenger rail in the United States. Since 1971, when Amtrak was created, $25 billion has been spent on passenger rail. This contrasts sharply with the $750 billion that has been invested in our highways and aviation.

As the Senate moves forward in considering a wide range of transportation issues and funding questions in this vital bill, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make sure we pursue the goal of ensuring that our roads, our highways, and bridges are able to meet the needs of our citizens and commerce as we move forward in the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss recent progress regarding amendment 13 to the Northeast Groundfish fishery management plan.

The omnibus appropriations bill we are currently deliberating will pause the implementation of amendment 13 for 5 months. This pause was added at my request because of inequities in this fishery management plan that unfairly discriminates against Maine fishermen. Since I announced in November that I would seek to delay implementation of amendment 13, considerable progress has been made to address the inequities in it.

Last week, the New England Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Committee held an emergency meeting

to address these problems. The committee made excellent progress. Specifically, it forwarded a recommendation to the council regarding a minimum allocation of 10 ``B'' days-at-sea for all permit holders. This significant change will ensure that no fishermen are shut out of the fishery entirely. Further, the committee forwarded a recommendation to the full council advocating a decrease in the conservation tax for days-at-sea transfer. Both of these recommendations will soften the impact of amendment 13 on Maine's fishermen.

The groundfish committee also charged their advisors with identifying ``B'' fisheries in the Gulf of Maine. It is crucial that these fisheries are developed to ensure Maine's smaller vessels, which do not have the capacity to reach the grounds currently open, can utilize their ``B'' days-at-sea. Finally, the committee asked their advisory panel to examine the problem of steaming time, which has long worked to Maine's detriment.

I recently received a letter from David Borden, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, confirming that ``all of the issues that [I] consider important to Maine fisherman are now being actively evaluated and considered by the New England Fishery Management Council.'' Chairman Borden goes on to assure me the language that I included in the omnibus, ``provided the necessary focus for the fishery management process to address these issues on a timely basis, and that process is well underway.'' I very much appreciate the chairman's candor and his willingness to work with me to address the aspects of amendment 13 that disproportionately harm Maine fishermen.

It is clear that in the months since my provision was added to the omnibus, the New England Council has acted in good faith to meet the concerns of Maine fishermen. Given these developments, I am prepared to lift my objections to an implementation date of May 1, 2004 for amendment 13. I will work with my colleagues to examine ways to lift the funding restriction included in the omnibus. I do this in good faith, and ask for good faith in return. My continuing effort to lift this funding restriction is contingent on both the council and the conservation community continuing to actively address the concerns I and Maine's fishing community have raised.

I am pleased that my provision had its intended effect of focusing the council's attention on the legitimate concerns raised by the Maine fishing community. I am confident that the council will continue to work to improve amendment 13 for the benefit of all New England fishermen.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a provision that was added to the omnibus appropriations bill at my request. The provision is designed to halt temporarily the implementation of amendment 13 to the Northeast groundfish fishery management plan. With this 5-month delay, which will be in effect for the remainder of the fiscal year, a more equitable form of amendment 13 can be developed. Without this delay, amendment 13 would devastate the fishing industry of my home State. Amendment 13 would deny at least a quarter of Maine's fishermen their traditional access to fish stocks, and would jeopardize the ability of many related small businesses to survive financially.

Amendment 13 would impose a series of regulatory changes to New England's groundfish management system. These new regulations would reduce the number of fishing days allocated to most Maine fishermen. The average Maine fishing vessel that received any fishing days would be allocated roughly 52 fishing days each year that they could use off Maine's shores. These, of course, are the most fortunate of Maine's fishermen, as many would receive smaller allocations of fishing days under amendment 13. Imagine trying to make ends meet practicing your profession only 1 day per week.

There are further problems with amendment 13 in its current form. The plan relies on targeting healthy fish stocks in order to mitigate economic impacts while less abundant fish stocks rebuild. This has led to the creation of two classes of fishing days: A and B days. On ``A'' days, a fisherman may target any fish stock. On ``B'' days, fishing is restricted to a handful of healthy species in designated areas.

Unfortunately, Maine's small boats will have difficulty using any of their B days due to safety concerns. These B fisheries are restricted to areas far out to sea that small boats cannot fish safely. There is simply no B fishery that Maine's smaller fishing boats can access.

Further, Maine's large boats will penalized under amendment 13 because they are forced to lose valuable fishing time in transit to fish stocks located far to the south of Maine. Groundfish regulations would count transit time, ``steaming time,'' as fishing time, putting Maine's fishermen at a severe disadvantage to fishermen located in southern New England. Fishermen based in southern New England could operate at a considerable competitive advantage, as they are able to spend more time fishing and less time steaming to and from fertile grounds, such as the Georges Bank. The result could well be the migration of Maine's fishing industry south to Massachusetts. In fact, we have already seen some large boats relocate from Portland to Gloucester.

Under amendment 13, Maine's larger fishing boats will continue to experience problems with steaming time. Fishermen from Portland, ME, who chose to take part in the cod exemption program and fish on stocks located on Georges Bank must travel 18 hours before they can put their nets in the water. In contrast, fishermen leaving from Gloucester, MA, can begin fishing after traveling for only 3 hours. Therefore, it makes perfect economic sense for vessels to relocate to southern ports, and some already have and more will do so. Maine suffers as these landings of fish and the revenues generated from these fish move south.

Furthermore, Maine's small-boat fishermen took drastic cuts in days- at-sea allocations. In fact, amendment 13 would allocate zero days-at- sea to 57 Maine groundfish fishermen; this is over 30 percent of Maine's groundfishing fleet that would be denied access to this resource. Maine's share of the groundfish resource has only diminished in recent years, and denying 30 percent of our fleet access to groundfish will only accelerate this trend. A larger portion of Maine's fleet

will be denied access to groundfish than in any other New England State.

Amendment 13 would also harm Maine's fishing-related businesses such as gear manufacturers, ice suppliers, and small boat repair shops. Maine's fishing infrastructure, which already is at a critical minimum, would lose revenue due to restricted access to the resource and due to the southward migration of Maine's groundfish fleet. If the current form of amendment 13 were implemented, Maine's working waterfront could vanish, to be replaced by coastal development. These regulations may well mean that Maine would have neither the fishermen nor the fishing infrastructure needed for a healthy groundfish fishery.

In response to concerns regarding loss of fishing infrastructure, inequities in steaming time, and the immense social and economic costs of amendment 13, the Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution addressing amendment 13 on September 15, 2003. This resolution called on Maine's congressional delegation to ``root out all provisions of regional groundfish management which discriminate against vessels fishing from the State of Maine in general and, in particular, from the Port of Portland.'' Amendment 13, in its current form, discriminates against Maine's fishermen. The delay in implementation will provide the time needed to ``root out'' the unfair aspects of amendment 13.

Anyone who has followed the amendment 13 process has been confronted with a litany of bad news; bad for New England, and especially bad for my home State of Maine. Newspapers throughout the State of Maine have detailed how amendment 13 would devastate Maine's fishermen and related businesses.

Maine's groundfishing industry has already suffered in recent years. Since 1995, Maine's groundfishing fleet has shrunk by roughly 40 percent. In the past two decades, Maine has lost nearly 50 processing companies. Amendment 13 would only accelerate this trend. In fact, analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service shows that amendment 13 would allocate so few days-at-sea to Maine's fishermen, that few, if any, of Maine's boats would be able to break even.

I want the New England groundfish fishery to be sustainable. But that goes for fish and fishermen alike. If fishermen cannot make a living at sea, they will have no choice but to turn to other businesses.

As part of the National Marine Fisheries Service's economic analysis of amendment 13, a break-even analysis is performed. This analysis makes a number of assumptions. First, this break-even analysis assumes a boat owner makes no profit, a grim prospect for any business. Second, this analysis assumes standard overhead and crew costs that must be overcome for a vessel to break even. By paying crew members the bare minimum pay of $25,000, most boats will need well over 60 days-at-sea to break even. Unfortunately, the average Maine fishermen will be allocated only 52 days-at-sea that they can actually use. Only a very small portion of Maine's fleet will be able to break even under amendment 13.

Amendment 13 is fundamentally unfair to Maine's fishing community. Yet, it was scheduled to be implemented by May 1, 2004, which marks the start of the next fishing season. Surely, we need a better, fairer approach. The amendment I included in the omnibus spending bill is meant to halt implementation of amendment 13 in the current fiscal year in order to provide an opportunity for the council to reconvene to find a management plan that is fair to all New England States; not a plan that ties the laboring oar of rebuilding the fisheries to the hands of just one State, Maine.

I have also sought this delay because we need time to make sure we do develop an equitable management plan before one is put into place. The groundfish fishery is recovering. Fish stocks have tripled in recent years; more important, they continue to rebuild under current regulations. This delay is not irresponsible; fish stocks are not declining. The condition of the fishery will continue to improve while a fair set of regulations are developed. The strict regulations that are currently in place, and that will stay in place because of my funding restriction, are undeniably working.

Because this matter is so important to so many people in Maine and throughout New England, I want to take a moment to make my intent in drafting this amendment perfectly clear.

My amendment prohibits funds in the omnibus from being used to implement a fisheries management plan for New England other than the final emergency rule published by the Department of Commerce in the Federal Register on June 27, 2003, at page 38234. According to the Department of Commerce, the final emergency rule was promulgated ``to ensure that there exist measures to reduce overfishing until implementation of amendment 13.'' This is still the goal under my amendment--the timeframe has just been extended.

I intend, through my amendment, to keep the final emergency rule in place through the end of the fiscal year. This is the case in spite of any provisions of law--including, but not limited to, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1855(c)--that might otherwise limit the duration of the provisions of the final emergency rule. Indeed, my amendment is intended to suspend the application of provisions such as 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1855(c) to the final emergency rule. And, in any event, my amendment would not prohibit the terms of the final emergency rule from being implemented, again, were they found by the court to have expired.

My amendment restricts the use of funds appropriated in the omnibus. Hence, the restrictions apply only through fiscal year 2004. Practically speaking, this means that no new management plan for New England can be implemented by the Department of Commerce before October 1, 2004. My amendment imposes this delay in order to provide time for the council to develop a plan that, unlike amendment 13, is fair to each of the New England States. The court, of course, is free to set a new implementation date that falls later than October 1, 2004, and might consider setting the new date at May 1, 2005, to coincide with the start of the fishing season.

In addition, my amendment in no way prevents the National Marine Fisheries Service from implementing regulations to allow the east coast scallop fleet and tuna purse seine fleet to access special management areas. I encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service to move forward and address these issues separate from the overfishing and rebuilding requirements in amendment 13.

It is my expectation that the New England Fishery Management Council will use the additional time my amendment will provide to develop a plan that all States can support. It is particularly encouraging that, after I announced that I would be pursuing this amendment, the New England Fishery Management Council's Groundfish Committee agreed to convene an emergency meeting in January to examine the concerns that I have raised. The Groundfish Committee did, indeed, address some of the issues that are important to Maine's fishermen, and I encourage the full council to follow the committee's lead and take positive steps toward resolving these critical issues.

The delay afforded by my amendment is so important because it provides time for the council to correct the inequities of amendment 13. The council was under severe, and in many ways artificial, time pressure to develop a new management plan. Moreover, much of what has been included in amendment 13 was brought to the council at a very late hour.

My amendment will provide time for the council to consider necessary changes that must be made to amendment 13. I do not expect the council to go back to the drawing board entirely. I believe that amendment 13 can be altered so that it is fair to all New England States. Problems with steaming time must be addressed by the council. Also, the council must deal with minimum days-at-sea allocations in a fair manner. There is room to improve the conservation tax on days-at-sea transfer to make this program viable, and the Groundfish Committee has forwarded a recommendation to the council that provides welcome relief. Finally, I believe that the leasing program should be extended to provide a measure of certainty to New England fishermen.

I am very pleased that, just last week, the Groundfish Committee forwarded several positive recommendations to the council for its consideration. The recommendations address many of the issues I have raised on behalf of Maine fishermen; issues that caused me to seek a delay in the implementation of amendment 13 in the first place. The council is scheduled to consider these recommendations next week. If the council makes similar, positive progress, I will happily reconsider the need for my amendment, and act accordingly.

In the end, I believe that the council can come up with a consensus product. That is not to say it will be a product that fishermen applaud. No one appreciates the Government taking away the livelihood families have relied upon for generations. But, until the inadequacies of our fisheries laws are addressed head on, we owe it to our fishermen to administer them, such as they are, with an even hand. That is precisely the goal of my amendment.

Mr. President, let me first return the Thanksgiving greetings of my colleagues. I hope that they, too, are able to have a happy holiday with their families and friends.

Mr. President, last week NBC News aired a report indicating that suspected terrorists had been granted American citizenship or permanent residency at the same time they were under investigation by the FBI for their involvement in terrorism. This well- researched piece reached the warranted and troubling conclusion that this occurred despite advance knowledge within the Department of Justice.

The NBC report revealed an alarming and dangerous lack of coordination between Federal agencies. The NBC piece parallels credible allegations that first came to my attention in January.

As the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, to followup on these allegations, I have made repeated requests of the Department of Justice for information that would allow my committee to assess this potentially serious threat to our national security.

We have a saying up in Maine: You can't get there from here. You may have heard it, Mr. President. But when it comes to travel in my home State, it is not really true. The roads may be winding, and the route may not be all that direct, but with persistence and patience, you can always get where you need to go.

However, when it comes to dealing with the Department of Justice on this very serious matter, it seems that you cannot get anywhere. I have been persistent, but my patience has pretty much run out.

The allegations that I received in January were these: In the course of investigating foreign-born individuals for terrorism-related offenses, the FBI learned that some of these individuals were in the process of applying for naturalization or permanent residency.

FBI agents requested permission to share that critical important information with the INS. Their FBI supervisors, however, refused those requests. This information has been confirmed by NBC News's chief investigative reporter, Lisa Myers, in her thoroughly researched piece that aired last week.

My requests to the Department of Justice for information that would define the size of this alleged hole in national security and of this possible gap in interagency cooperation have been refused repeatedly.

I have modified my requests in order to accommodate the specific objections raised by the Department. My modified requests have also been refused due to new objections or, in some cases, old ones simply rephrased.

Here is a brief travelogue of my 10-month journey in the bureaucracy of the Department of Justice: On January 21, shortly after these allegations came to my attention, I wrote to the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, and asked that he provide the committee with the names, dates of birth, INS registration numbers, and start dates of investigations of all persons who have been the subjects of terrorism investigations from September 10, 1991, through September 10, 2001, in the 15 largest FBI field offices. I asked to have this information delivered to my office by February 4.

Well, I received no response at all until February 28, when I received a reply from the Department categorically denying my request. The primary reason cited was that the Department had a longstanding policy of not providing Congress with information about people who have been investigated but not prosecuted.

Among the other supporting reasons were the separation of powers and--I am not making this up, Mr. President--a concern that providing Congress with information that could help it understand and remedy a situation so potentially damaging to our Nation's security could, and I quote, ``gravely damage the nation's security.''

The Department did offer, at that point, to work with me to see if there was an alternative. I eagerly took the Department up on that offer, and I wanted to try to accommodate whatever legitimate concerns the Department might have.

Thus, my staff talked repeatedly with the Department during the next few months to craft a mutually agreeable alternative approach.

On May 21, I submitted another much narrower request proposing that the Department of Justice would conduct its own review, a review I would think that the Department would be very eager to conduct once this threat was brought to the Department's own attention. Moreover, the length of the review would be reduced from a decade to 5 years, and the scope would be reduced from 15 field offices to just 5.

Now, by this time, of course, the INS had been moved from the Department of Justice to the new Department of Homeland Security.

It had been renamed as the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. I suggested the FBI provide the results of its internal review to the BCIS so it could determine who had been granted citizenship or permanent residency while they were being investigated for terrorism. Again, I would think the Department would be very concerned about the serious breakdown and lapse in communication and would be eager to review its own files to quickly uncover the names of individuals who might have become citizens or permanent residents while they were under investigation for terrorism-related activities.

After months of negotiations between my staff and the Department's staff, I believed I had finally come up with a solution that addressed all of the Department's concerns.

On July 3--keep in mind how much more time has yet elapsed--I received a reply. Much to my astonishment, the answer once again was no.

Two new concerns were raised: First, when the FBI and the INS were part of the same overall Department of Justice, they could share information for this purpose legally; although, as we well know, they didn't. Now that they are in two different departments, the Justice Department claims the Privacy Act prevents the sharing of this critical information.

The second reason advanced was the FBI simply did not have the time or resources to review its own files. Again, keep in mind how important it is for the Department to know how many people were in this situation where they were under investigation for terrorism and yet received either American citizenship or permanent residency. I would think the FBI, on its own volition, would be eager to retrieve that information.

At this point some of my Senate colleagues may be asking themselves a few questions, if they have had some experience with congressional oversight. First, hasn't the Justice Department many times in the past provided Congress with information such as interview summaries and documentary evidence related to individuals who have been investigated but not prosecuted? Second, does this refute the Justice Department's argument about a supposedly sacrosanct longstanding policy? Would such a policy, if it existed and were adhered to as strictly as the Justice Department now asserts, exempt the Justice Department from effective congressional oversight? The answer to these questions is obvious.

Although the Justice Department would not review its own files to discover the extent of this problem and to document whether terrorists had been granted citizenship or permanent residency, its officials have indicated in writing to me that this likely occurred.

Let me expand on that point. The Justice Department is not refuting the basic premise. In a July 3 letter I received from the Department, from which I want to quote, it says:

We appreciate the Committee's interest in the question of

whether individuals were naturalized or received permanent

residence status while they were subjects of foreign

counterintelligence investigations and, in fact, we have

indicated in conversations with Committee staff our belief

that this likely occurred prior to September 11, 2001. We do

not have data to support this view, but based upon our

knowledge of how Bureau and then-Immigration and

Naturalization Services systems interfaced, we do not

dispute the premise.

This is serious. In other words, suspected terrorists most likely received citizenship or permanent residency in the country they swore to destroy because the FBI and the INS did not talk to each other. This is extraordinary.

During my negotiations with the Department of Justice, I had suggested the Privacy Act concern the Department raised could be dealt with if the FBI passed the sealed findings of their review through my committee which then could, in turn, pass the findings along to the BCIS. That wouldn't work, Justice said, because it would violate--you got it--their longstanding policy against providing information to Congress about investigations that did not result in prosecution.

If you think we have been driving around in circles, you are right. The Justice Department refuses to provide my oversight committee with information because of a ``longstanding policy.'' We suggest a way around that longstanding policy, and the Department cites the Privacy Act. We suggest a way to avoid the Privacy Act concerns, and we find ourselves back to the longstanding policy.

This is simply unacceptable. We know some terrorists and supporters of terrorism seek out the protective guise of American citizenship. We know a lack of coordination between the relevant agencies allowed this unacceptable situation to occur. What we don't know is how many times it has happened, how broad this problem is, how many people are involved and, most important of all, what has been done to stop it, to close that communications gap.

The Committee on Governmental Affairs will pursue this matter by continuing its investigation. I have again written to the FBI Director to request the records needed by the committee. I have now focused my request on those individuals who were named in the NBC report. It is not a burdensome request. It is not an onerous request. It is a request that is very specific, time limited, and narrow in scope. There is no reason for the Department of Justice not to promptly turn over these documents to the committee.

I want to acknowledge those courageous FBI agents who wanted to do the right thing, tried to do the sensible thing, who said: Let's share this critical information, when they discovered suspected terrorists were trying to become American citizens or permanent residents. It is deeply disturbing that in some cases their supervisors did not listen to them. It is deeply disturbing that bureaucracy trumped national security and common sense.

I invite those agents to step forward again to make their concerns known by contacting my committee. We will listen, and we will act.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon have an historic opportunity to pass landmark legislation to make affordable prescription drug coverage available to all of our Nation's seniors, as well as to people with disabilities who receive Medicare benefits. This legislation, which represents the largest expansion of Medicare in the program's 38-year history, is long overdue, and it deserves our support. Prescription drugs are as important to the health of our seniors today as a hospital bed was back in 1965 when the Medicare Program was first created.

I have long been a supporter of providing a prescription drug benefit as part of an effort to strengthen the Medicare Program, and I believe that were prescription drugs as important back in the 1960s as they are today the creators of the Medicare Program undoubtedly would have provided for that coverage. But back then the focus was on covering hospitalization.

While I continue to have reservations about some of the conference agreement's provisions, we simply cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. This historic opportunity may never come again, and we cannot afford to let it pass. We cannot allow yet another year to go by without taking action to help our seniors with the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation. Millions more will be helped in the future. I, therefore, will cast my vote in favor of the conference report, and I want to take a moment to commend the majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Breaux and, indeed, all of the conferees who have worked so hard to craft a compromise and to bring this bill before us.

With recent advances in research, prescription drugs can literally be a lifeline for many patients. They reduce the need to treat serious illness through hospitalization and surgery. They allow our seniors to live longer, healthier, happier lives. Soaring prescription drug costs, however, have placed a tremendous financial burden on millions of our disabled citizens and senior citizens who must pay the full retail price for these essential drugs out of their pockets. Monthly drug bills of $300 or even $400 or even more dollars per month are not at all uncommon for older Mainers living on very limited incomes.

Lorraine White, of Winthrop, ME, wrote to tell me that she and her husband spend about $400 each month on vital prescription drugs. They live on limited income and they have had to draw down their savings to make ends meet. They wonder what they are going to do when their savings are depleted.

Time and again, seniors in Maine have come up to me to tell me they simply cannot afford the essential prescription drugs their physicians have prescribed. I remember an elderly woman coming up to me in a grocery store in Bangor and telling me she could only get 12 of the 36 pills for which her doctor had written a prescription. None of our seniors should be faced with those kinds of decisions. They should not be choosing between paying their bills and buying the pills that they need to stay healthy.

The legislation that is before us today will make affordable prescription drug coverage available to seniors such as the Whites, like so many seniors with whom I have talked in Maine, and it will protect them from these high out-of-pocket costs that are such a burden.

Under this legislation, the Whites' drug costs would be cut by more than half, and the savings would be even greater for this couple if they qualify for the low-income subsidies provided under this legislation.

The legislation before us today makes prescription drug coverage a permanent part of the Medicare Program, and it provides a benefit that will be available to all seniors and disabled individuals on Medicare, regardless of where they live.

It is also crafted in a way that, if a senior citizen is very happy with their health care insurance, the drug coverage that that senior already has, he or she does not have to take this additional benefit under the Medicare Program. It is a voluntary benefit.

Beginning in 2006, all seniors will be eligible to get both upfront and catastrophic protection for an average premium of $35 a month. Moreover, low-income seniors, those who are most burdened with the high cost of prescription drugs, will receive generous subsidies and get additional protections. The more than 12 million older and disabled Americans nationwide, including 75,000 Mainers, with incomes below 135 percent of poverty will not have to pay any premiums at all to secure comprehensive prescription drug coverage, and they will have only minimal cost sharing. An additional 18,500 low-income Mainers will qualify for reduced premiums, lower deductibles, and coinsurance rates, and no gaps in coverage.

The senior Senator from Maine spoke earlier today about this legislation, and I agree wholeheartedly with her contention that our Medicare beneficiaries will, indeed, be far better off once this legislation is signed into law. Clearly, we are providing meaningful and realistic help to our seniors, particularly those who are struggling the most--low-income seniors and those with very high drug costs.

The one drawback that I see in the way this benefit is structured, that I want to discuss right now, is that, unfortunately, it takes time for this new benefit to come on line. I fear many of our seniors believe this benefit is going to be available immediately and, unfortunately, that is not the case. But there is still help, immediate help, in this bill for our seniors. To provide some interim assistance, starting next year seniors will receive discount cards that will save them between 15 and 25 percent on each prescription drug purchase. Moreover, low-income beneficiaries will receive a $600 credit on that card, in both 2004 and 2005, that they can apply to the purchase of their drugs. This subsidy in conjunction with the discount card will give our most vulnerable seniors immediate assistance in purchasing drugs that they otherwise might not be able to afford.

In addition to the prescription drug benefit, there are other significant features in this bill that I strongly support. For example, the bill takes major steps to make Medicare payments more equitable. This is an issue I have been working on since my first year in the Senate. The bill tracks very closely legislation that Senator Feingold and I introduced earlier this year.

Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor large urban areas and failed to take into account the special needs of rural States. This simply is not fair. Ironically, in Maine the low payment rates are also the result of the State's 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 to doctors and hospitals. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low-cost and high-cost States. I am, therefore, particularly pleased that the chairman of the Finance Committee worked so hard to include in the conference report significant steps to strengthen the health care safety net by increasing Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals in rural States such as Maine.

According to the American Hospital Association, these provisions will increase Medicare payments to Maine's rural hospitals by more than $125 million in the next 10 years.

Moreover, they will increase payments to physicians in Maine by an estimated $7 million a year.

I can't tell you how important these rural provisions are to my State. Maine ranks near the bottom in the rate of Medicare reimbursement despite the cost of survival care in my State and despite the fact that the providers in Maine give very high quality care. This inequity has only worsened as additional payments under the Medicare system have gone to large urban hospitals.

I am very pleased that the rural health care package will help relieve some of the stress on our rural hospitals which are so important to rural States such as Maine. It will help ensure that there is more equity in the Medicare reimbursement system.

I also include a special thanks to the conferees for including a provision at my request that will ensure continued Medicare graduate medical education funding for Maine's family residency programs. These family practice residency programs are absolutely essential in training physicians who tend to stay in Maine and serve. They practice in underserved areas of the State.

I am also pleased that the legislation restores the rural add-on; that is, the enhanced reimbursement for Medicare home health payments that is vital to sustaining home health care in the rural areas of our country.

The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Missouri, and I have worked very hard over the years to sustain and revitalize home health care. We are well aware that many of our elderly citizens would prefer to receive the health care they need in the privacy and security of their own home. But Medicare reimbursement rates, particularly in rural areas, have been so lacking that that home health care has been in jeopardy. I wish the bill went further. I think we should have had a 10-percent rural add-on in order to compensate for the additional costs in terms of travel time, long distances between patients, and other factors that come into play when home health care is provided to seniors and disabled citizens in rural areas.

In fact, surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly. But certainly the extension of a 5-percent rural add-on is a major step in the right direction.

I am also very relieved that the conferees rejected an ill-advised proposal to have our seniors have a copay for the cost of home health care. I am convinced that had that been included in this package and signed into law, it would have discouraged many of our most vulnerable sick seniors from getting the home health care they need. The conferees made a wise decision, indeed, in dropping that provision which was included in the House version of this bill.

The conference report will also make prescription drugs more affordable for all consumers by closing loopholes in our patent laws that some of the large brand name pharmaceutical companies have exploited in order to delay consumers access to lower priced generic drugs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these provisions will help to reduce our Nation's drug costs by some $60 billion over the next decade.

I am very pleased to have played a role in drafting this legislation with leaders on the bill--Senator Schumer, Senator McCain, Senator Edwards, and Senator Gregg. All of us worked very hard to bring this about. This is a really significant provision. It is going to help reduce the cost of drugs in State Medicaid programs. It will help to control the cost of drugs in the Medicare Program as we are adding this benefit. It will help uninsured individuals because it will lower the cost of drugs for them. It will help employers who are providing prescription drug coverage as part of a health insurance plan. This is a very important provision and one I advocated very strongly to be included in this conference report.

In addition, the conference report includes the provision which I offered, and which the Presiding Officer cosponsored, to the Senate bill to establish a pilot program to help modernize the outdated ``homebound'' definition that has impeded access to needed home health services for many of our elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries.

I know that when we start talking about the definition of ``homebound'' in the Medicare Act it may sound esoteric, but in fact it is vitally important for so many disabled and elderly citizens who, because of the interpretation of the law by some of the fiscal intermediaries in the Medicare Program, have literally become prisoners in their own homes fearful of leaving in that they will jeopardize their ability to continue to receive essential home health care.

I particularly thank David Jayne, the courageous advocate who inspired this legislation, a truly heroic individual, and also Senator Bob Dole who has been such an outstanding advocate for disabled Americans for so many years. They worked very hard to ensure that this provision was retained in the final version of the bill.

Overlooked in much of the discussion of this Medicare bill are other very important provisions that will provide better coordinated care for seniors with chronic conditions such as diabetes. As the cochair, along with Senator Breaux and the founder of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I believe these provisions will greatly improve the quality of care for individuals suffering from diabetes. I am very pleased that these provisions have been included in this bill.

I have talked now at some length about the many provisions in this conference report that I strongly support. I do, however, have reservations about other provisions.

The House bill included provisions based on a premium support model that would have called for direct competition between private plans and traditional Medicare. I have serious concerns about the implications of this proposal, particularly that it could result in driving up premiums in the traditional Medicare Program. That would be particularly problematic in a rural State such as Maine where seniors are not likely to have a host of insurance companies competing for their business because of the small size of the market.

Moreover, the House bill could have resulted in sharply different premiums for seniors in different parts of the country and even within a single State. Those health provisions really troubled me because I did not think that a senior living in Fort Kent, ME, should be paying a different rate for the same coverage as a senior who is living in San Francisco, CA. I therefore joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to the majority leader expressing concern about the inclusion of this controversial policy in the Medicare bill.

The final bill, while it still causes me a lot of concerns in this area, is different from what was in the original House proposal. The original proposal was significantly downsized to a limited pilot project that would not begin until the year 2010 and that would provide significant protections for those seniors who are remaining in the traditional Medicare Program.

While I continue to have reservations about even the demonstration project, I urge my colleagues to look at the package as a whole. I agree with the AARP and the National Council on the Aging that its strengths clearly outweigh its weaknesses. When I hear some say that somehow this legislation spells the end of the traditional Medicare Program, I know that is not true. I know it is not true because I have carefully studied this bill. I also am convinced it is not true because the AARP, the Nation's largest seniors organization, would never endorse a bill that spelled the end of the Medicare Program. That is just not conceivable.

This conference report represents the last real hope of getting an affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit anytime in the foreseeable future. Our seniors have already waited too long for this benefit. We cannot delay; we cannot continue to push this issue off to the future. Since the cost of providing a meaningful drug benefit will only increase as time passes, it is imperative we act now. Our seniors have waited too long for this coverage. We cannot push this off another year, another month, another week. Let's act now. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This package is worth supporting despite its flaws. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the conference agreement.

I yield the floor.