Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his courtesy and also for the extraordinary job he has done in bringing together people of diverse views on this critical issue of forest management. I also thank the Senator from New Mexico for agreeing to let me deliver my comments before he offers his amendment.

Responsible management of our Nation's forests is vital to preventing the highly destructive forest fires that we are seeing plaguing the West and also to protecting our ecosystems. I am very pleased the Senate is moving forward with this important issue which I know matters greatly to the Presiding Officer as well.

No discussion of a responsible forest management system would be complete, however, without addressing another threat to our Nation's working forests and open spaces; that is, suburban sprawl. Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys ecosystems and increases the risks of flooding and other environmental hazards. It burns the infrastructure of the affected communities, increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. It leads to the fragmentation of wood lots, reducing the economic viability of the remaining working forests.

Sprawl occurs because the immediate economic value of forests or farmland cannot compete with the immediate economic value of developed land in the areas that are experiencing rapid growth.

No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the Virginia State Forester says that since 1992 the Commonwealth of Virginia has lost 54,000 acres of forest land per year to other uses. The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments recently reported that southeastern Michigan saw a 17-percent increase in developed land between 1900 and 2000.

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

I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and open space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows are lost to development, they are lost forever. Maine is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of my State have approved a $50 million bond to preserve land through the Land For Maine's Future Program, and they contribute their time and their money to preserve important parcels and to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal Government to help support these local community-based efforts.

For these reasons, I will be offering an amendment, along with Senator Harkin, that establishes a $50 million grant program, the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Program, within the U.S. Forest Service, to support locally driven, market-based land conservation projects that will preserve our working forests and farms.

Locally driven and market based are the essential aspects of this program. This program is locally driven because it encourages communities and nonprofit organizations to work together with landowners to help promote sustainable forestry and public access. The program will allow local governments and nonprofits to compete for funds and hold title to land or easements purchased with programmed funds. Projects funded over this initiative must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In addition, the legislation requires that Federal grant bonds be matched dollar for dollar by State, local, or private resources.

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

The legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing seller'' provision that will require the consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the program.

The $50 million that would be authorized would help achieve a number of stewardship objectives. First, the amendment would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant industry. Second, the resources would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and to prevent sprawl.

Currently, if a town such as Gorham, ME, or another community is trying to cope with the effects of sprawl and turns to the Federal Government for assistance, they would find there is no program. My proposal would change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest land and managing sprawl, while leaving decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs.

There is great work being done in Maine and in other States to protect our working forests for future generations. I am grateful for the many organizations that are lending support to this effort and which have also endorsed my legislation. There is a nationwide network of organizations that have endorsed my proposal, including the National Association of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Lands, the Land Trust Alliance, and many others.

By adopting this proposal and incorporating it into this bill, Congress can

provide a real boost to conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, preserve special open places, forest lands, and farms, and help sustain natural resource-based industries.

I thank Senator Cochran in particular for his assistance on this legislation. It is always a great pleasure to work with him. I hope this proposal will be incorporated into the final bill.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and, as the month is coming to an end, it is appropriate that we take some time to celebrate the progress we have made against this devastating disease and, at the same time, acknowledge how much further we have to go.

Breast cancer has taken a tremendous toll on far too many Americans and their families. There are very few people in this country who haven't lost a family member, friend or coworker to this cancer. More than 200,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone, and, regrettably, about 40,000 of those diagnosed will die from the disease. Across the country, one woman in eight will develop breast cancer at some point during her life. While we have made great progress, we must continue to work to find new and more effective ways of preventing, detecting and treating breast cancer.

Astoundingly, of the 3 million American women who are living with breast

cancer, an estimated 1 million don't know it. Regular screenings and early detection remain the most effective ways to combat breast cancer and improve a woman's chances for successful treatment and survival. It is therefore critical that we take steps to make early detection more common.

For this reason, I am a strong supporter of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, which has provided important cancer screening services at low or no cost to more than three million low-income American women who otherwise might not have been able to afford these critically important tests. The Maine Breast and Cervical Health program is funded through this program and provides screening and diagnostic services at 300 sites across the State. Since its inception, more than 20,500 screenings have been conducted through this program in Maine, and 151 cases of breast cancer have been diagnosed. As one Maine woman observed, ``This screening program was an answered prayer. I had been concerned about having to skip checkups lately, but there was no way to come up with the money any time soon. I will gladly tell all of my friends about this and will gladly return for follow-up.''

Screening must be coupled with treatment if it is to save lives, and that is why I also cosponsored legislation to provide the treatment necessary to save the lives of the women who are diagnosed with cancer through this program. Since the screening program is targeted to low- income women, many of those screened do not have health insurance and many more are under-insured. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, which has been signed into law, gives states the option of providing treatment through the Medicaid program for woman diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through this screening program. I am pleased to say that Maine is one of 45 states that have elected to take advantage of this option.

Promising research is leading to major breakthroughs in preventing, treating and curing breast cancer. There simply is no investment that promises greater returns for Americans than our investment in research, and I have been a strong proponent of congressional efforts to double our investment in biomedical research over five years. Last year, the National Institutes of Health spent $640 billion on breast cancer research. This year that figure grew to nearly $700 million.

I was also pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the National Cancer Act of 2003, which sets out a comprehensive national plan to combat cancer, with substantial and regular increases in the National Cancer Institute's budget. The legislation also includes important provisions to increase access to cancer screening, clinical trials, cancer drugs, and high quality cancer care. I am hopeful that continued funding increases will allow us to accelerate our efforts to find better treatments, a means of prevention, and ultimately a cure for devastating diseases like breast cancer.

As National Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, we should celebrate life and the progress we are making in the fight against this disease. With determination and patience, we can limit the terrible impact of the disease and bring hope to millions of women and their families.

In closing, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the senior Senator from Maine on this issue. Senator Snowe has been a tireless champion and advocate, and has led the battle against breast cancer, first in the House and now in the Senate, on a number of fronts ranging from increased breast cancer research funding at the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense to landmark legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic information. We should all be grateful for her efforts.

I appreciate the Senator's comments and I look forward to working with him. I would also like to assure him that I do not believe the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction affects in any way the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization matters, as set forth in Senate rule XXV. The Governmental Affairs Committee was responsible for the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the new Department of Homeland Security. The committee has conducted wide-ranging and vigorous oversight of the Department and, this year alone, has reported out six bills that address homeland security concerns. In total, the Governmental Affairs Committee has held over 30 hearing on homeland security matters, thus reflecting the paramount role it plays with respect to these matters.

The committee also has handled the nominations of almost all of the Department's nominees. On June 5th of this year, our committee held a hearing on Mr. Garcia's nomination. We reported his nomination to the full Senate on June 17th. We then agreed to a referral of Mr. Garcia's nomination to the Judiciary Committee. I understand that my colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now seeks a second referral of the nomination in order to complete its work thereon. I have no objection to my colleagues' request.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010.

The scientific evidence that people are causing the Earth to warm grows more robust each year. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. . . .'' Indeed, a new scientific analysis shows that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in the last 1,000 years.

Perhaps most alarming is the rapid warming that is occurring in the Arctic. According to data released last week by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Arctic temperatures are currently increasing at a rate of two degrees per decade, and Arctic ice is melting at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Scientists are now projecting that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the summer by mid-century. Due to the importance of the Arctic Ocean to the world's climate as a whole, this prediction is truly alarming.

To be sure, there are still numerous uncertainties. Researchers at the University of Maine have pointed out that past changes in the climate have tended to occur very abruptly, but we do not know if future changes in the climate will also occur in abrupt shifts. Nor do we know how quickly future warming will occur. Due to these uncertainties, I believe we should not only direct more attention to better understanding the climate, but also take prudent actions to reduce the risk of disruptive climatic changes.

The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship proposal would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. In light of the climate changes observed to date and the potential risks of even greater and more abrupt changes, I support this goal. It is a prudent step in the right direction, and I intend to vote in favor of the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

Although I am in favor of the Climate Stewardship Act, I think more thought needs to go into the exact actions by which we reach the goal of reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. These are important decisions, and Congress should not allow such important decisions to rest in the hands of the agencies. I support concrete, certifiable reductions, and these reductions should come primarily by increasing the efficiency of our economy and further developing our renewable energy resources. Increasing CAFE standards for automobiles, efficiency standards for air conditioners and other appliances, and reducing power plant emissions are just a few examples of concrete steps that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States has made tremendous strides in increasing the energy efficiency of the economy. In doing so, we have averted millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions. With further steps in improving our energy efficiency, the McCain-Lieberman target is imminently attainable. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I would like to thank the managers of the bill for their leadership on this important legislation, and I greatly appreciate their efforts to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure.

I would like to make my colleagues aware of a project of great importance, not just to my constituents in Maine, but to the rest of the country as well. The existing border crossing connecting Calais, ME to St. Stephen, New Brunswick is heavily congested and therefore causes significant traffic delays and creates serious security concerns for U.S. and Canadian travelers and cross-border commerce. The current crossing is the eighth busiest commercial crossing on the Canadian border and has seen truck traffic double over the last 10 years. Since 199 the Maine Department of Transportation, along with the Federal Highway Administration and the General Services Administration, has engaged in a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, process to determine the location for a new, modern, efficient border crossing. As part of the overall project, the General Services Administration is responsible for designing and constructing a new border station. The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, will be responsible for the design and construction of the border station on the Canadian side of the river. The Maine Department of Transportation and New Brunswick Department of Transportation, and the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency have funding in place for their portions of the design. Therefore, it is crucial that funding for the GSA portion of the project be appropriated so that design and construction work can begin as soon as possible. I would ask that the Senator from Alabama work with me to ensure that this project moves forward as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I give my remarks, let me thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to craft this amendment. It has been a great pleasure to work with all of them. I believe the proposal we are advancing this evening not only reflects a great deal of thought and deliberation but is by far the best policy we could pursue.

The Senate is engaged in a historic debate: the consideration of the most comprehensive package of military and foreign reconstruction assistance since the Marshall plan. The administration has asked the Congress to appropriate $87 billion, some of which would go to

Afghanistan, but the vast majority would go for Iraq.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I visited Iraq last July. I am well aware of the urgent need for additional funding to support our troops. Rogue elements operating in Iraq, whether it is the remnants of the Baathist regime or terrorists from other countries, endanger our troops and threaten to undermine our efforts to establish a prosperous and democratic society. It is imperative that our troops have all the support they need to be as safe and as effective as possible. In that regard, it is indeed heartening that the $66 billion included in this package that will be used to support our troops enjoys widespread support.

The stakes are very high. We simply cannot fail in Iraq. The sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform cannot be in vain. This funding will help to support their efforts and to ensure their success.

I also recognize that Iraq needs our assistance in constructing a modern infrastructure and rebuilding its security services. There are $20 billion included in this bill targeted for those purposes. I note the significance of that amount; it is more than our entire foreign aid budget. So this is a very significant assistance package we are considering tonight.

It is vital that basic services be restored to the Iraqi people as soon as possible so that their hardships do not continue. Without reliable electricity and clean water, the Iraqi people cannot rebuild their lives, their country, and their economy. I believe there are, however, ways to structure this assistance to provide the Iraqis with the help they need while lessening the impact on the American taxpayer. That is the goal of the bipartisan amendment we have put forth this evening.

While I fully support the President's overall budget request, we have an obligation to explore ways to lessen the burden on the American taxpayer. To accomplish this goal, our amendment proposes that part of this assistance be provided to the Iraqi people in the form of a loan, to be repaid at some point in the future when Iraq once again becomes the prosperous nation it has the capacity to be.

When I visited Iraq, I was struck by how little damage the war actually inflicted on the infrastructure of that nation. I saw firsthand evidence of how our precision weaponry and the care our troops took were successful in targeting installations that posed a threat to our troops or supported the regime of Saddam Hussein while sparing the civilian community.

I was also struck, however, by the dreadfully poor infrastructure of communities throughout the nation. Basic elements of a modern nation, such as the electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges, were ignored by Saddam Hussein as he looted the country and left it in shambles. In fact, when you think about it, what we are really talking about is construction costs, not reconstruction. Iraq lacks many of the elements of a modern and well-functioning infrastructure.

I do not believe it is in any way unfair to ask the Iraqi people to invest in their own future by repaying the American taxpayers some of the funding used to construct their infrastructure, particularly when they clearly will have the ability someday to do so, for Iraq is not Afghanistan; Iraq has an educated population, abundant natural resources and, most notably, the second largest oil reserves in the world.

The administration projects that Iraq will be generating $20 billion in annual oil revenue within just 2 years. With such economic assets, Iraq undoubtedly one day will have the financial wherewithal to repay this loan. Moreover, asking the Iraqis to take some responsibility for rebuilding their own country will help give them a sense of ownership, increasing the chances that our reconstruction efforts will endure long after our troops have returned home.

One of the arguments put forth by opponents of the loan concept is that Iraq is already burdened with an estimated $100 billion to $125 billion in debt from Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is often left out is that some of the largest holders of that debt are Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and Russia. If it were up to the leaders of three of those nations, the Iraqi people would still be suffering under the brutal and repressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

The American people will be justifiably outraged if one dime of their money is sent to France while the American people are pouring millions of their hard-earned tax dollars into rebuilding Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia should not be paid for the debts incurred by one of the most despicable and violent leaders in decades while the American taxpayer invests billions in the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq.

I also point out that structuring our assistance as loans is not without precedent. Most of the large-scale infrastructure projects undertaken in postconflict Bosnia have been administered through the World Bank in the form of loans with reasonable repayment conditions. If this approach is not hindering the reconstruction of Bosnia, the same surely should hold true for Iraq, a country with far greater economic resources.

That is why we have joined this evening to offer this amendment. This amendment ensures that the American taxpayer will eventually be reimbursed for a portion of our investment in Iraq. Under our proposal, $10 billion in our construction assistance will be made available for use as loans while the other $10 billion will be available as grants.

So you can see we have taken a very reasonable, moderate approach in constructing this amendment. By making available $5 billion in grants for rebuilding Iraq's security services and yet another $5 billion to jump start the reconstruction process, our approach ensures that the administration has the funds necessary to address the immediate and pressing needs.

Furthermore, the amendment requires the administration to notify congressional committees after the expenditure of every $250 million of the funds. This provision will help to enhance accountability. The President is then authorized to use the remaining $10 billion as loans to the Iraqi Governing Council or its successor.

Here is an important provision of our amendment. We say that if, however, 90 percent of Iraq's bilateral foreign debt is forgiven, then the remaining assistance will be converted to grants and the loans already obligated will be forgiven. So this is a very generous proposal.

This provision will encourage other countries to forgive at least a portion of their debt and ensure that we are not financing the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure while nations that loaned money to Saddam Hussein are repaid.

In addition, the amendment includes a sense-of-the-Senate provision encouraging all the nations to forgive their pre-liberation bilateral debt and to provide robust levels of reconstruction aid to postwar Iraq at the upcoming donors conference.

The American people are very generous. They not only want to give our troops the support they need but they want to provide help to the Iraqi people. The American people understand that Iraq cannot repay this money immediately. That is not what we are asking. But the American taxpayer does deserve to be repaid eventually for some of our investment in this country. And Iraq deserves to be treated as a country that has the enormous economic potential that it clearly has. Structuring our reconstruction assistance as a loan is a reasonable approach that satisfies both concerns.

Again, I acknowledge the hard work of the group of Senators, including the Presiding Officer, who have worked very hard to come up with what I believe is a commonsense approach to this aid package.

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

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration on behalf of myself, Senator Wyden, and others.

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

The amendment my colleague from Oregon and I are offering tonight requires the use of full and open competition for the award of contracts under this bill to support our military or related to the reconstruction of Iraq.

Competitive bidding ensures the taxpayer gets the very best value for his investment. It also enhances public confidence that contracts are awarded in a manner that is fair and transparent, a process that allows all qualified bidders to submit bids for the contract.

This principle of full and open competition is enshrined in the Competition and Contracting Act, which is current law.

Under that law, contracts must generally be bid under full or open competition unless one of seven exemptions is invoked.

Unfortunately, however, some of the contracts that have been awarded to date, both to support our military in Iraq and to begin reconstruction efforts, have not been awarded using full and open competition. The contracting process has been curtailed.

We want to make sure the general rule is competitive bidding, and, if there are cases where there are legitimate reasons for curtailing competition--say, for reasons of national security--then we believe there should be a process in place that requires a justification for curtailing competition and disclosure of that fact.

Generally, under our amendment, if competition is not used in the award of a contract, the agency involved would have to justify the reason for invoking an exception to competition and report that in the Commerce Business Daily, the Federal Register, and to the appropriate committees of Congress. We recognize there may be a few cases where it is so secret, it is so classified, that disclosure in the Commerce Business Daily and the Federal Register would not be appropriate. In those cases, we provide for an alternative form of notifying Congress.

Our amendment will bring accountability and sunshine to the competition and contracting process. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

It has been a great pleasure to work with my colleague, Senator Wyden. We have made a number of efforts in this regard. I believe this amendment should enjoy widespread support.

I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I yield back my time if the Senator from Oregon will also yield back his time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Pryor, Coleman and Bingaman in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' Among other provisions, our bill authorizes a new, competitive State grant program to support statewide systems for care for children with serious mental illness so that parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. Of these, nearly half have a condition that produces a serious disability that impairs the child's ability to function in day-to-day activities. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with a serious mental illness to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children.

Recent news reports in more than 30 States have highlighted the difficulties that parents of children with serious mental illness have in getting the coordinated mental health services that their children need. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald last summer which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting care for their children.

Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts and to prevent such acts from occurring. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too may cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy titled ``Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.''

The GAO surveyed child welfare directors in all States and the District of Columbia, as well as juvenile justice officials in the 33 counties with the largest number of young people in their juvenile justice systems. According to the GAO survey, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services.

Moreover, the GAO estimate is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including the five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

There have been other studies indicating that the custody relinquishment problem is pervasive. In 1999, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill released a survey which found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

While some States have passed laws to limit or prohibit custody relinquishment, simply banning the practice is not a solution, since it can leave mentally ill children and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

In July, I chaired a series of hearings in the Committee on Governmental Affairs to examine the difficult challenges faced by families of children with mental illnesses. We heard compelling testimony from families who told the Committee about their personal struggles to get mental health services for their severely ill children. The mothers who testified told us they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The legislation that we are introducing today was developed in response to concerns raised by both the GAO report and in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings.

First, the legislation authorizes $55 million for competitive grants to States that would be payable over six years to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. These grants are intended to help states serve these children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

States would use funds from these Family Support Grants to foster interagency cooperation and cross-system financing among the various State agencies with responsibilities for serving children with mental health needs. The funds would also support the purchase and delivery of a comprehensive array of community-based mental health and family support services for children who are in custody, or at risk of entering into the custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. This will allow States, which already dedicate significant dollars to serving children in state custody, to use those resources more efficiently by delivering care to children while allowing them to remain with their families.

In response to recommendation made by the GAO report, the Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of their agencies in promoting access by children and youth to mental health services.

And finally, the legislation will remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more states from using the Medicaid home and community- based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health conditions. The Medicaid home and community-based services waiver is a promising way for States to reduce the incidence of custody relinquishment and address the underlying lack of mental health services for children. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, to date very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. That is because, under current law, States can only offer home- and community-based services under these waivers as an alternative to care in hospitals, nursing facilities, or intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. Our legislation will correct this omission and provide parity to children with mental illness by including inpatient psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities on the list of institutions for which alternative care through the Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers may be available.

The legislation we are introducing today will help to reduce the barriers to care for children who suffer from mental illness and will assist States in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children to State agencies solely for the purpose of securing mental health services.

Our legislation has been endorsed by a number of mental health and children's groups including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the National Child Welfare League, the Bazelon Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Mental Health Association. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Pryor, Coleman and Bingaman in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' Among other provisions, our bill authorizes a new, competitive State grant program to support statewide systems for care for children with serious mental illness so that parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. Of these, nearly half have a condition that produces a serious disability that impairs the child's ability to function in day-to-day activities. What is even more disturbing is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with a serious mental illness to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children.

Recent news reports in more than 30 States have highlighted the difficulties that parents of children with serious mental illness have in getting the coordinated mental health services that their children need. My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald last summer which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting care for their children.

Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts and to prevent such acts from occurring. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too may cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy titled ``Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.''

The GAO surveyed child welfare directors in all States and the District of Columbia, as well as juvenile justice officials in the 33 counties with the largest number of young people in their juvenile justice systems. According to the GAO survey, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services.

Moreover, the GAO estimate is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including the five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

There have been other studies indicating that the custody relinquishment problem is pervasive. In 1999, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill released a survey which found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

While some States have passed laws to limit or prohibit custody relinquishment, simply banning the practice is not a solution, since it can leave mentally ill children and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

In July, I chaired a series of hearings in the Committee on Governmental Affairs to examine the difficult challenges faced by families of children with mental illnesses. We heard compelling testimony from families who told the Committee about their personal struggles to get mental health services for their severely ill children. The mothers who testified told us they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The legislation that we are introducing today was developed in response to concerns raised by both the GAO report and in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings.

First, the legislation authorizes $55 million for competitive grants to States that would be payable over six years to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. These grants are intended to help states serve these children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

States would use funds from these Family Support Grants to foster interagency cooperation and cross-system financing among the various State agencies with responsibilities for serving children with mental health needs. The funds would also support the purchase and delivery of a comprehensive array of community-based mental health and family support services for children who are in custody, or at risk of entering into the custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. This will allow States, which already dedicate significant dollars to serving children in state custody, to use those resources more efficiently by delivering care to children while allowing them to remain with their families.

In response to recommendation made by the GAO report, the Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of their agencies in promoting access by children and youth to mental health services.

And finally, the legislation will remove a current statutory barrier that prevents more states from using the Medicaid home and community- based services waiver to serve children with serious mental health conditions. The Medicaid home and community-based services waiver is a promising way for States to reduce the incidence of custody relinquishment and address the underlying lack of mental health services for children. While a number of States have requested these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, to date very few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. That is because, under current law, States can only offer home- and community-based services under these waivers as an alternative to care in hospitals, nursing facilities, or intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded. Our legislation will correct this omission and provide parity to children with mental illness by including inpatient psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities on the list of institutions for which alternative care through the Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers may be available.

The legislation we are introducing today will help to reduce the barriers to care for children who suffer from mental illness and will assist States in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children to State agencies solely for the purpose of securing mental health services.

Our legislation has been endorsed by a number of mental health and children's groups including the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the National Child Welfare League, the Bazelon Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Mental Health Association. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the inspectors general during the past 25 years. I am very pleased to be joined in this undertaking by Senator Lieberman and many of our distinguished colleagues in both Houses of Congress.

Since 1978, the inspectors general (IGs) have made valuable contributions to the efficient and economical operation of the Federal Government. They have made thousands of recommendations, which ultimately saved the American taxpayers literally billions of dollars.

We've all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads build to nowhere: those are examples of the kind of wasteful spending that the IGs have exposed. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, forcing cutbacks in vital government services.

Investigations by inspectors general have also resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury from companies and individuals who defrauded the Federal Government. These investigations have been the basis for thousands of criminal prosecutions, debarments, exclusions, and suspensions.

In my capacity as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and previously as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have had the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with IGs to combat fraud and waste in a variety of programs.

To cite just one example, I worked with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services to uncover flagrant examples of Medicare fraud. We found that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies that had provided no services whatsoever. Indeed, the address listed by one company did not exist, and, if it had, the address would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport.

The Offices of Inspector General have demonstrated a record of tremendous success over the past 25 years, and we wish to commend them and their employees for their dedication and professionalism in the performance of their duties.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Lieberman and me in passing this resolution commending the IGS for their many accomplishments.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the inspectors general during the past 25 years. I am very pleased to be joined in this undertaking by Senator Lieberman and many of our distinguished colleagues in both Houses of Congress.

Since 1978, the inspectors general (IGs) have made valuable contributions to the efficient and economical operation of the Federal Government. They have made thousands of recommendations, which ultimately saved the American taxpayers literally billions of dollars.

We've all heard the horror stories of $500 hammers and roads build to nowhere: those are examples of the kind of wasteful spending that the IGs have exposed. The waste of scarce Federal resources not only picks the pockets of taxpayers but also places severe financial pressures on already overburdened programs, forcing cutbacks in vital government services.

Investigations by inspectors general have also resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury from companies and individuals who defrauded the Federal Government. These investigations have been the basis for thousands of criminal prosecutions, debarments, exclusions, and suspensions.

In my capacity as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and previously as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have had the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with IGs to combat fraud and waste in a variety of programs.

To cite just one example, I worked with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services to uncover flagrant examples of Medicare fraud. We found that the Federal Government had been sending Medicare checks to 14 fraudulent health care companies that had provided no services whatsoever. Indeed, the address listed by one company did not exist, and, if it had, the address would have been located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport.

The Offices of Inspector General have demonstrated a record of tremendous success over the past 25 years, and we wish to commend them and their employees for their dedication and professionalism in the performance of their duties.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Lieberman and me in passing this resolution commending the IGS for their many accomplishments.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Levin, in offering an amendment that would require the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and maintain cost-effective procedures to fill the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment simply requires the Department of Energy to publish procedures for obtaining oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a manner that maximizes supplies, minimizes costs, and is consistent with national security. The amendment would give the Department of Energy 180 days to publish these procedures and would allow an opportunity for public comment prior to final publication.

Two years ago, Senator Carl Levin, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, initiated an investigation into gas prices in the United States. Part-way through this effort he expanded the investigation to include analysis of Department of Energy policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Last year, I joined Senator Levin in requesting information from the Department of Energy on the impacts of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on crude oil prices.

In March of this year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report which described the findings of the investigation. Among other things, the Committee found that inconsistent Department of Energy policies had led to filling the reserve during tight market conditions. The Committee found that this action had increased oil prices, hurt U.S. consumers, and increased the cost to taxpayers.

The Department of Energy should adopt procedures to ensure that oil purchases for the SPR minimize the economic impact on consumers. The Department of Energy needs to take full advantage of techniques such as deferred payments, use of the futures market, and careful cost-benefit analysis in order to lessen the impact of oil purchases on consumers. Although the Department has used all of these policies on occasion, it should do so consistently.

The United States has the ability to partially mitigate dramatic spikes in gas prices, if we properly use and maintain our domestic reserve. In fact, it is our duty to do so, to ease the economic impact that drastically rising gas prices have on Americans who need to fill their tanks in order to do their jobs, buy their groceries, and drive their kids to school.

Our amendment would ensure that price and market impact are top considerations in managing this vital domestic emergency oil supply. It would give the Department of Energy an opportunity to focus increased attention on its policies and procedures for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with particular regard to the effect of its policies on gas prices and oil markets. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Levin and me in supporting this amendment.

I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee for the fine work he has done putting together this bill. The bill includes substantial funding for programs to conserve our Nation's treasured lands and resources, including $85 million for the forest legacy program; a program that means so much to my home State of Maine.

There is one Maine conservation project, however, that does not receive funds through the Senate bill. It is the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership, the goal of which is the sustainable conservation of 342,000 acres in Maine, including 78,800 acres of pristine lakes, 54,000 acres of productive wetlands, 445 miles of unspoiled shoreline, and 342,000 acres of remote forestland. This important project, which enjoys widespread support in my State, including the support of the Governor, is at a critical stage. But it requires Federal support in the coming fiscal year to help bring the project to fruition.

I would therefore ask the chairman whether he will commit to doing all he can to consider funding the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership when this bill goes to conference?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your pledge of support, and for the leadership you consistently demonstrate on conservation issues.

land remote sensing

Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers.

Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts.

This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative.

Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack.

But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike.

As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention.

The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks.

I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community.

Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs.

This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter- terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials.

Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year.

I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need.

I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation.

A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers.

Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts.

This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative.

Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack.

But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike.

As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention.

The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks.

I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community.

Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs.

This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter- terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials.

Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year.

I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need.

I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation.

A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island in urging support for this amendment which would provide additional emergency funding for the Low Income Home Heating Assistance Program. When we experience huge spikes in the increase of home heating oil and natural gas, it imposes an incredible hardship on our low-income families and on our elderly who are living on limited incomes. We are taking a prudent action by setting aside $300 million in emergency funding in case this winter we experience the kinds of price disruptions that create such hardships for our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.