Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Dodd- Hagel-Jefford amendment to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. I am pleased to join Senators Coleman, Murray, Dorgan, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski and others as a cosponsor of this amendment.

IDEA is based on two fundamental principles: first, that all disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. And second, to the maximum extent possible, these children should be educated along side their nondisabled peers.

To help States achieve these principles, Congress authorized funding at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, this funding level has never been realized, leaving States with insufficient resources and jeopardizing the achievement of IDEA's goals.

In 1996, the year I was first elected to the Senate, the Federal Government provided only $2.3 billion for IDEA funding, about 7 percent. Last year, IDEA funding had risen to $8.9 billion, about 18 percent. While clearly we have made great strides in this area, the currently IDEA funding is still less than half of the 40 percent originally promised by Congress. Over the years, this shortfall has placed a tremendous financial stress on States in providing these services, and in particular on small rural communities such as those in Maine.

As startling as these shortfalls are, they fail to fully convey the crushing financial blow which can result to a small community when a medically fragile, high cost child locates there. In these situations, school systems are often forced to cut back in services to all children, both disabled and nondisabled, in an attempt to meet their legal obligations. Unfortunately, this can result in resentment of these children by members of their own community.

Increased Federal support is desperately needed, and that is why I want to thank Chairman Specter for the substantial increase in IDEA funding he has included in the Senate base bill. He has included nearly a billion-dollar increase over last year's level.

Our amendment seeks to further boost this funding by providing an additional $1.2 billion for IDEA Part B State Grants. This increase would result in a $2.2 billion increase over fiscal year 2003 funding and will keep us on the track toward full funding. Our amendment would also be consistent with action taking during Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, which similarly provided for a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA. In Maine, passage of this amendment would result in a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2003 funding levels.

With this amendment, we would raise the Federal Government's commitment to roughly 21 percent of the costs of special education. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. Let's continue our efforts to make good on our promise and fully fund IDEA.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment that would increase the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $300 million.

Before I begin my formal comments, I, too, want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his longstanding support of low-income heating assistance funding. Due to his efforts, there is in this bill a $200 million increase in LIHEAP funding over last year. Moreover, the bill would provide $300 million more in much-needed regular LIHEAP funding than either the administration's request or the House bill. So the legislation before us represents significant progress.

Nevertheless, I am joining in the effort of my colleague from Rhode Island because I think it reflects a realistic

appraisal of the needs for more assistance in this program.

During the past year, the Nation has gone from energy crisis to energy crisis. In just this year alone, we have seen price spikes involving home heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, and electricity. Earlier this year, one of the largest suppliers of oil to American markets, Venezuela, ceased production as a result of political turmoil. A harsh cold snap occurred at about the same time, causing home heating oil supplies to plummet and prices to surge upward.

More recently, we have run into a shortage of natural gas that has again sent prices shooting upward. Three weeks ago, 50 million Americans suffered through the biggest blackout in American history. And finally, most recently, the price of gasoline rose with unprecedented speed to approximately $1.75 per gallon.

These energy crises impose an especially heavy burden on our low- income families and on those of our elderly who are living on limited incomes. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on energy and have fewer options available when energy prices soar. High energy prices can even cause some families to choose between keeping the heat on, putting food on the table, or paying for much- needed prescription medicine.

These are choices no American family should ever have to make. Despite the hardship which energy emergencies impose on low-income Americans and despite the frequency with which we have all been forced to suffer through energy emergency after energy emergency, the bill before us does not provide any contingency LIHEAP funds to respond to these kinds of emergencies. Given the frequency with which we have been beset by energy crisis after energy crisis, in my view it is only prudent that we plan ahead and that we include some contingency funding to ensure low-income families can get through the next energy crisis on the horizon.

I hope we won't have to use that funding. I hope prices will be stable, that the winter will not be unusually harsh or long, and that there will be no energy emergencies in fiscal year 2004. If there aren't, if we are lucky or fortunate, then we will have no need to spend this money and we will all be much relieved. But just in case the future repeats the past, doesn't it make sense, just in case there is another shortage of home heating oil or natural gas or price spikes or heat-related crisis next summer, we be better prepared? Should we not set aside some funding to help those who will need the help the most?

I call upon my colleagues to join Senator Reed and me in supporting this amendment which will set aside an additional $300 million for energy emergencies.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on two of the amendments that I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring. First, let me acknowledge the hard work of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in shaping this bill. There are so many important priorities. They have done a very good job.

The amendments I have cosponsored have to do with education spending. First, I think it is important that all of the Members of this body acknowledge and recognize that under President Bush's leadership we have invested unprecedented amounts of Federal funding to improve the education of our children. We should never forget that fact. In fact, President Bush's budgets are 60 percent higher for education funding than the budgets presented under President Clinton. Nevertheless, there are a couple of areas where I think we can do even better and make a real difference.

Amendment No. 1566

For this reason, I have been very pleased to join my colleague from Massachusetts in offering an amendment to the bill to provide additional funding for higher education.

Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits today have not been distributed equally to all Americans. As tuition rises, the road to higher education in America gets steeper and harder to climb for low- and middle-income families.

In 1979, a student in the top quartile of family income was four times more likely to obtain a baccalaureate degree by age 24 than a student from the bottom quartile. That discrepancy has grown by an additional 70 percent by graduation day for the class of 2001.

Tuition fees at 4-year public colleges have increased by 40 percent over the past decade. Everyone is familiar with the pressures State budgets are under, and that, too, has caused more pressure on the tuition at public universities and colleges.

At the same time, the value of Pell grants has declined by nearly half over the last 20 years. Today, Pell grants cover only 40 percent of the average fixed costs at 4-year public colleges whereas 20 years ago the Pell grant covered more than 80 percent of public college expenses.

From my experience in working at a Maine college before my election to the Senate, I know how critical Pell grants and other forms of Federal financial aid are in opening the doors of educational opportunity to many students. In fact, at Husson College where I worked, 85 percent of the students were reliant on Pell grants and student loans to finance their college education. Without that assistance, they simply would not be able to afford higher education.

I found more and more of our students are graduating with a mound of debt because of that change in ratio. It used to be that Pell grants and other forms of assistance covered most of the costs of a college education. Now, they cover far less and thus our students are forced to take out more and more and greater and greater amounts of loans to finance their education.

I am not saying education should be paid for the students, but we need to strike the right balance or else the doors of higher education and, thus, economic opportunity will be slammed shut for far too many low-income families.

Therefore, our amendment provides $2.2 billion to help fund crucial higher education programs including Pell grants, the SEOG, Work-Study, Perkins loans, the LEAP program, GEAR UP, and last but not least, the TRIO programs. The Kennedy-Collins amendment would provide desperately needed funding to increase the maximum Pell grant award. Our amendment provides a $450 increase in the maximum Pell grant and increases Pell grants to approximately 4.8 million students with a median family income of only $15,200. A Pell grant makes all the difference to these low-income families. It makes the difference between their children having economic opportunity, being able to pursue an education that is so necessary for a brighter future, that is necessary to participate in the American dream.

We can take this step, we can provide this $450 increase in Pell grants to these low-income children. In my State of Maine, this amendment results in an increase of $6.3 million in Pell grant aid.

I also want to talk about the importance of this amendment and the significant increases for other student-oriented programs. Again, I commend the committee and subcommittee chairmen for their hard work in bringing education spending up to unprecedented levels.

There is a program that I believe is so important to expanding opportunity for so many students. That is the TRIO Program. Our amendment provides a $160 million increase. The TRIO programs may be better known to many of my colleagues as Upward Bound, for example. That is an example of the TRIO programs. They help first-generation college students and low-income students get on the right track and begin to think about higher education as something that should be part of their lives.

I have talked to many students in Maine whose parents did not have the advantage of higher education. They told me that prior to participating in the TRIO programs, they just did not realize that college could be part of their lives. The TRIO programs exposed them to higher education, encouraged them, counseled them, helped them afford SATs, for example. It makes a difference. It truly changes the lives of so many students who come from families with absolutely no experience in higher education.

We have proposed to increase the funding for TRIO programs as well as for the GEAR UP and LEAP program which are aimed at younger children. The sooner we get students interested in higher education, the better. These programs change lives for the better. I hope we can help keep the doors of higher education open to all qualified students no matter their financial needs.

Amendment No. 1568

I am also very pleased to be a cosponsor of an amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Conrad that would increase the funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program. This program I authored along with Senator Conrad as part of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Again, I acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the chairman, Senator Specter, on behalf of rural schools. The administration's budget, I am sad to say, eliminated funding altogether for the

Rural Education Achievement Program. Senator Specter was able to restore this funding, which I deeply appreciate. It is essentially flat funded, however, and I would like to see an increase.

Our rural schools--and in Maine, that is 56 percent of the school districts in the State--need help in meeting the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Children in small rural school districts deserve the same educational opportunities as their more urban counterparts.

We enacted the Rural Education Achievement Program to respond to two problems. First, smaller school districts do not have the grant writers and the other resources to compete for Federal grants the way the larger, more urban school districts do. Second, they often receive so little funding under the formula programs that it is not sufficient to accomplish the goals of those programs.

So the concept behind the Rural Education Achievement Program was to give more funding for rural schools, that they would not have to go through an elaborate grant-writing process, and to give them the flexibility of combining funding streams so they could have the funds available that would make a difference.

Let me give a couple of examples. In Jackman, ME, for example, a small community in western Maine, last year the school district received $16,000 in REAP funding in the Rural Education Achievement Program. The superintendent plans to use that money to support technology in the classroom and teacher training. There are other examples. In the Bradley School District in Penobscot County, ME, with 104 students, they received $21,000 through the Rural Education Achievement Program. The total Federal formula funding under ESEA going to this small school district will be about $25,000 this year. That is enough to allow Bradley the flexibility to hire a part-time reading specialist to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind, to update computer systems, or provide some extended-day learning opportunities.

With the increased challenges of No Child Left Behind, our Nation's rural school districts need the additional financial resources and the flexibility provided by the rural education program now more than ever.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment as well.

Madam President, I am very pleased to join my friend and colleague from Maryland in offering this important amendment to the appropriations bill. Senator Mikulski and I have teamed up on many health care issues, ranging from home health care, ensuring adequate reimbursements to diabetes research, to helping draft the Nurse Reinvestment Act as members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Today we team up once again to increase the funding for the Nurse Reinvestment Act and other nursing workforce development programs by $63 million. I join my colleague from Maryland in saluting the efforts of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in providing some significant funding for nursing education programs. Our amendment, however, would bring the total level of funding for these vital programs up to $175 million in fiscal year 2004. That is not up to the full authorized level, but it is an amount that we believe would allow us to make real progress in remedying the extreme nursing shortage facing our Nation.

In fact, the United States is facing a nursing shortage of critical proportions. Moreover, this shortage is only expected to worsen as the baby boom generation ages and their need--our need--for health care grows. According to the American Hospital Association, there currently are more than 126,000 nursing vacancies in hospitals alone. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that by the year 2010, there will be a shortage of 275,000 registered nurses, more than double the current number. In Maine, almost 1 out of 10 nursing positions at hospitals across our State is vacant.

We also face persistent shortages of certified nursing assistants and other front-line health care workers in our hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, and other health care facilities.

The current nursing shortage poses a significant threat to the ability of our health care system to deliver quality care. The New England Journal of Medicine published a disturbing study last year which found that nursing shortages in hospitals are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death. The study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients in hospitals with fewer registered nurses were more likely to suffer from complications such as urinary infections and pneumonia; they were more likely to stay in the hospital longer; and they were more likely to die from treatable conditions such as shock and gastrointestinal bleeding.

The fact is that nurses are the eyes and ears of our hospitals. They often serve as an early warning system when complications begin to develop. But

the problems cannot be detected and treated early if nurses do not have sufficient time to spend with their patients.

Another study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found that each additional patient in a nurse's workload meant an increase of about 7 percent in the likelihood that the patient would die within 30 days of admission.

This is literally a matter of life and death. If there are more nurses, if hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities are adequately staffed with nurses, the quality of care provided to patients and the likelihood of a successful outcome are much higher.

While the situation is grave today, we face even greater threats and crises in the future. Our current nursing workforce is aging. In Maine, 61 percent of our registered nurses are at least 40 years old. As a consequence, many of them will be retiring just as we aging baby boomers begin to place additional demands on our health care system. The nursing shortage therefore is sure to worsen if we do not make the critical investments today--now. We need to act more to support our current nursing workforce and to encourage more young people to choose nursing as their profession.

Last year, Congress passed the Nursing Reinvestment Act to do just that. This legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support. It authorizes scholarships to nursing students who agree to provide at least 2 years of service in a health care facility with a critical nursing shortage. It creates career ladders to help nurses and other health professionals advance in their careers. It provides loan cancellation for nurses with advanced degrees in exchange for teaching at schools of nursing.

Let me expand on that point.

Last year, I had the privilege of meeting with the nursing deans of Husson, the University of Maine, and what is now Eastern Maine Community College. They told me that they are being overwhelmed with applications from students who are eager to study nursing, but they simply cannot accommodate the qualified applicants who wish to enter the nursing program. The reason: A shortage of nursing professors.

There is a very important provision in this bill that encourages nurses with advanced degrees to teach at schools of nursing to help close that gap and lessen that shortage so that we can start training more nurses. It is not only a matter of encouraging more people to go into nursing but also to make sure that we have the nursing faculties available to educate these young students.

The Nursing Reinvestment Act builds on existing title 8 nursing education programs that provide loan repayments to nurses, improves the diversity of the nursing workforce, and expands opportunities for nursing education at all levels. All of these programs play a vital role in recruiting nurses and making sure that they have the training required to effectively and compassionately care for their patients.

The promise of this new law and other nursing educational programs will not be kept without an adequate investment of funds. That is why I felt so strongly about joining with my colleague from Maryland in this amendment. Increasing the funding level for these important programs to $175 million in fiscal year 2004 will allow them to expand to address nursing shortages in communities across the country.

I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this vital amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an awards dinner being held in the Lewiston/ Auburn communities of Maine. This event, ``Celebrating the Women of L/ A,'' honors those women who have demonstrated, through their accomplishments and their caring, a significant impact on their community.

The women honored in the Twin Cities' celebration have accomplished a great deal. Women across the country have soared through space, raised children, developed life-saving medicines, cared for a loved one, established businesses, and quietly improved the lives of those in their families and their communities. This special Maine dinner not only recognizes the business or scientific accomplishments of women, but also, all that these honorees bring to their families and their communities.

Those submitting nominations were asked to describe briefly what it was about the nominee that made her such a special and important part of the community. Here are a few examples: ``She has coordinated charity work of many organizations such as the collection of money, clothing, coal, wood, groceries, stoves, furniture, and toys for the Relief Society; organized the sponsorship for a maternity room and children's room at Central Maine Medical Center; and selected children to receive assistance from churches.''

``Mom works hard. She helps me. She takes me swimming. She gets me toys. She takes me shopping. We have girl-time. We go to the movie theater. She makes me dinner. She helps me clean. We cuddle on the couch and watch movies.''

``When you need her, she's there. When you're not sure you want anyone around, she's still there for you--especially with her children. She's had to cope with the tragic death of her mother and had many set backs, and still she has maintained the strength to be there for all of us.''

``She is a lifeline. She has been there for me through several tough times in my life, lending her support or sometimes just a sympathetic ear. She has never judged me, as others have, for my less than brilliant choices in life. No matter what the cost, she is always there to defend my decisions to anyone who may have something to say. Though her schedule is busy, she always makes time for me and for that I value her friendship.''

``She is a professional in her field. She takes her job very seriously and always gives it her all to help people. She is a very loyal, dedicated individual who works hard for what she has.''

``Mothers influence their children's lives in profound ways. My mom's influence has been no exception to that statement. She lived through the nightmare of seeing two brothers seriously injured during World War II and married a man that served during the Korean War. Yet, as far back as I can remember, my Mom was always cheerful and optimistic.''

``My mother has never had time for herself, and now has her own health needs that she must attend to. Nevertheless, she still tends to the needs of others before taking care of herself. Not only has she mourned her husband, father and mother in law, but she has also had to mourn her mother and her only sibling, a brother. My mother has made the most of the sorrow and hardships and she has been an inspiration to so many people, and a wonderful role model for all of her children.''

There are so many more testimonials that were received on behalf of the honorees. They speak to the importance and influence that these women have had on their families, their friends, and their communities.

I am honored to pay tribute to the following Women of L/A: Judy Merced, Crystal Brissette, Sandy Barnies, Linda Saucier, Gail L. Richard, Lorraine Yvonne Poulin Sheehy, and Etta Y. Mitchell.

They each are so deserving of this recognition, and I congratulate them as they are recognized for their efforts in the home, the workplace, and in the community. These women represent so many others for whom no public praise has been made. I offer my thanks and best wishes to all the women of L/A for making our community such a strong and vibrant place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich and Durbin.

The Superior Court is the local court of general jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. The Associate Judges on the Court are selected through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, usually because of a retiring judge, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, solicits applicants to fill the vacancy. They narrow the possible number of candidates to three and send those three names to the President. The President then selects one of those three candidates to nominate and sends the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59.

Recently, I was informed that nominations, currently pending in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and an additional candidate expected to be nominated in the coming months, may not be able to be seated on the Court, even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three seats that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by retiring judges, so they are not new seats on the Court. The cause of this unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family Court Act, enacted last Congress. That Act created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the Court. As a result, the Family Court Act effectively eliminated three existing seats in the other divisions of the Court, including the criminal and civil divisions.

Because of this, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently has four nominations pending for the Superior Court, but only two seats left to fill. I also understand that there is yet another nomination expected in the coming months. Because existing law sets strict requirements on both the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission as well as the White House on how quickly they must process potential candidates and make a nomination, it is unclear whether they have legal grounds to halt their processes. Nor is it clear as to whether, had they known of this problem, they would have had the power to not make the nominations they have already made.

This is a highly unusual situation. Mr. President, for this body to have nominations pending before it for which there are no open positions. The bill I introduce today would rectify this problem by amending the District of Columbia Code to increase the cap on the number of Associate Judges on the Superior Court. This is not intended to create new seats on the Court; that was already done when the D.C. Family Court Act was enacted. Instead, this would preserve existing seats on the Court and remedy a problem that is effecting not only the Court, but the Senate as well. I believe that it is also important to not only remedy the immediate problem before the Senate, but also to ensure that all of the divisions of the Superior Court are fully staffed. This is more than just a procedural issue. It is also important for the citizens of the District of Columbia to know that all of the divisions, including criminal and civil, are operating at full capacity. Eliminating existing seats in the criminal and civil divisions will not improve the administration of justice in the District, but can only result in increased judicial case-load and delays at the Courthouse.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would preserve existing seats on the District of Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich and Durbin.

The Superior Court is the local court of general jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. The Associate Judges on the Court are selected through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on the Court occurs, usually because of a retiring judge, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission, solicits applicants to fill the vacancy. They narrow the possible number of candidates to three and send those three names to the President. The President then selects one of those three candidates to nominate and sends the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges on the Superior Court at 59.

Recently, I was informed that nominations, currently pending in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and an additional candidate expected to be nominated in the coming months, may not be able to be seated on the Court, even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three seats that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by retiring judges, so they are not new seats on the Court. The cause of this unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family Court Act, enacted last Congress. That Act created three new seats for the Family Court, which is a division of the Superior Court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges seated on the Court. As a result, the Family Court Act effectively eliminated three existing seats in the other divisions of the Court, including the criminal and civil divisions.

Because of this, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently has four nominations pending for the Superior Court, but only two seats left to fill. I also understand that there is yet another nomination expected in the coming months. Because existing law sets strict requirements on both the D.C. Judicial Nominations Commission as well as the White House on how quickly they must process potential candidates and make a nomination, it is unclear whether they have legal grounds to halt their processes. Nor is it clear as to whether, had they known of this problem, they would have had the power to not make the nominations they have already made.

This is a highly unusual situation. Mr. President, for this body to have nominations pending before it for which there are no open positions. The bill I introduce today would rectify this problem by amending the District of Columbia Code to increase the cap on the number of Associate Judges on the Superior Court. This is not intended to create new seats on the Court; that was already done when the D.C. Family Court Act was enacted. Instead, this would preserve existing seats on the Court and remedy a problem that is effecting not only the Court, but the Senate as well. I believe that it is also important to not only remedy the immediate problem before the Senate, but also to ensure that all of the divisions of the Superior Court are fully staffed. This is more than just a procedural issue. It is also important for the citizens of the District of Columbia to know that all of the divisions, including criminal and civil, are operating at full capacity. Eliminating existing seats in the criminal and civil divisions will not improve the administration of justice in the District, but can only result in increased judicial case-load and delays at the Courthouse.

I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New Mexico of the situation with respect to the training of our Federal law enforcement officers and I am pleased to pledge to work with the Senator to address the problem he has presented. In fact, I believe S. 1245, which was recently reported unanimously out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, may provide the appropriate vehicle for making this change.

Mr. President, I would oppose the amendment of my friend from Texas. I understand that she has agreed not to offer the amendment, and instead to just debate the issue at this time. As I noted yesterday, when a similar amendment was offered by the Senator from New York, formula fights are never easy. But they deserve careful deliberation and consideration.

An appropriations bill is where Congress spends money once it has settled on a formula in authorizing legislation. An appropriations bill is not the right place to have a formula fight.

My friend from Texas has raised an issue that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Government Affairs Committee, which has held three hearings on this topic this year. We have heard from firefighters, police officers, mayors, governors, State emergency management directors, county officials, and Secretary Ridge.

As a result of these hearings, I have developed legislation, on a bipartisan basis, with Senator Carper and 15 other cosponsors.

Just last month, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved this legislation by a unanimous vote. My legislation would address the very issue that the amendment of the Senator from Texas seeks to address on this appropriations bill.

I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Texas because it would pre-empt a debate that we began in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that should continue when our legislation reaches the Senate floor.

But I also oppose this amendment because it is bad for Maine--and States across the country. And because I believe it could compromise the security of this great Nation.

This amendment would not only reduce the small State minimum from .75

to .5 percent of the amount appropriated, but it would also make the small State minimum a ceiling, rather than a floor, which it is in current law, and should remain.

Moreover, big States already get plenty under the bill that Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have so ably crafted.

The bill distributes $1.75 billion to all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Of this amount, $1.05 billion, or 60 percent, will be distributed strictly based on population, meaning more populous states do well.

In addition, however, the bill sets aside $750 million just for big cities. That means states such as Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alaska will not see a dime of this money--$750 million just for the country's biggest cities--$250 million more than the House appropriated. And yet big States want more.

The Senate should not be considering these kinds of authorizing changes to an appropriations bill.

I know it is tempting to offer amendments like this to appropriations measures--I considered offering my grants bill, or parts of it, as amendments--but the practice must be resisted. It does an end-run around authorizing committees, which are set up to address matters such as these in a deliberate, thorough manner.

Any modifications to ODP's formula should be considered in a comprehensive manner, not as piecemeal amendments. By changing the formula on an ad-hoc basis, we may produce unintended consequences, where a State may end up with insufficient homeland security resources.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose changes to the existing funding formula on this bill.

At the same time, I pledge to work with my friend from Texas to accommodate her legitimate concerns. Big States have big homeland security needs, and the Federal Government has an obligation to help them.

Madam President, I thank the Democratic assistant leader for his assistance in this matter.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which will help us to better protect communities across America.

I congratulate Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran for putting together a bill that fairly balances the many responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security. I also thank Senator Stevens for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the Senate floor.

This legislation, I believe, will give Secretary Ridge, State and local officials, and first responders the tools they need to build a more effective homeland security structure.

Protecting this vast and diverse Nation is an enormous task, but our people--from Washington, DC, to the small border communities in northern Maine--have the skills, ingenuity, and the spirit to get the job done.

On March 1 of this year, the foundation for this new structure was laid as 22 separate Federal agencies and Departments were merged into the new Department of Homeland Security.

Creating a new Department is, however, just a start. Each State has its own security challenges, and every community has its own needs. My home State of Maine must protect a long and remote stretch of our northern border. Our enormous coastline is lined with small harbors, three deep-water cargo ports--one of which is the largest tonnage port in all of New England--and two ports that regularly welcome passengers from around the world. We have two international airports in Maine, one of which played a most unwelcome role in the events of September 11.

This legislation will provide more than $29 billion in fiscal year 2004 to fund the Federal Government security efforts and to help each of our States meet its particular needs. It includes $8.2 billion to protect our Nation's borders, including funding for an additional 600 border agents and the development of innovative new security technologies.

I am pleased that under the leadership of Senator Cochran the Appropriations Committee has provided more than $60 million for the Container Security Initiative. I know from a hearing held by the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, that this partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and our shipping industry to target high-risk containers will help to better protect our ports from terrorist attacks.

The legislation also provides more than $5 billion for the Transportation

Security Administration, including $1.8 billion for passenger screening and $150 million for port security grants. These grants provide important security upgrades to help protect an industry that is absolutely vital for our economic prosperity.

I am pleased that Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have agreed to many of the suggestions I have forwarded to them for upgrading our Nation's Coast Guard. This legislation provides $6.8 billion for Coast Guard operations, including $702 million for the Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which is vital to helping the Coast Guard carry out its traditional missions even as it meets its new and enhanced responsibilities for homeland security.

This legislation also maintains our commitment to America's first responders--our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency medical personnel--who are on the front lines of the war against terrorism.

As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made helping first responders a top priority. The needs of our first responders are as varied as the communities they protect. If there is a local emergency, citizens do not call Washington, they call 911. It is our first responders who are truly on the front lines in protecting our communities and in responding to any sort of terrorist attack.

The $3.6 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness, including $1.75 billion for State and local homeland security grants and $750 million for fire grants, is vital to the success of our first responders. These programs will provide them with better communications equipment, more firetrucks, and more exercises in training to do what they do best--prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other emergencies.

But appropriating the funds, while essential, does not complete the job. We must also get these funds where they are needed quickly and efficiently. I have spoken to officials from communities around the State of Maine, to the mayor of Baltimore, and to officials throughout the Nation about the existing grant programs to assist our first responders. They are grateful for the grants, but frustrated by the bureaucracy, the time-consuming, complicated, and rigid application process, and the mountain of paperwork.

After holding several hearings on this topic in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I introduced, with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003. This legislation would provide a steady ongoing stream of funding to each and every State. It will simplify the grant process. It will promote flexibility in the use of homeland security funds so they can be targeted to the greatest need. I urge the Senate to pass this legislation which has been reported unanimously by the committee. This will help us streamline and strengthen the way we provide assistance to those on the front lines.

Finally, I add my strong support for the $3.6 billion included in this legislation for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, including $2 billion for disaster relief and $153 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.

As with any appropriations bill, one can argue about funding levels or that a certain program deserves more money than another. That is also true with this legislation. For example, I would like to have seen more funding for first responders and port security. But given the constraints on the Federal budget, I believe the managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member, have done an extraordinary job. This legislation spends homeland security dollars in an effective, efficient manner. By providing more training and equipment to our first responders, more equipment and funding to secure our ports, and additional resources to protect our borders, this legislation gets the maximum benefit out of the Federal budget, out of the Federal resources available with the constraints under which we are operating.

Again, I congratulate the chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member for putting together an excellent piece of legislation that fairly addresses the diverse needs of our States and communities. I urge quick passage of the legislation so that the Department of Homeland Security and those throughout our homeland can continue to work together more effectively on the crucial tasks that lie ahead as we seek to better secure our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee for his generous and kind comments. He has been wonderful to work with on this issue, as every other. We are very fortunate to have him leading this essential subcommittee.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the sense-of-the- Senate amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York today. The Senator's amendment is on a subject of great importance to each and every Senator, and that is how best to divide up the homeland security funds to ensure we get the most from the resources we are investing. It is a subject that falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair.

The committee held three hearings on this topic. We have heard from firefighters, police officers, mayors, Governors, State emergency management directors, county officials, and from Secretary Ridge. As a result of these hearings, I developed bipartisan legislation, which the committee has unanimously approved. That legislation is cosponsored by Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, Akaka, Hagel, Burns, Chafee, Roberts, Dorgan, Chambliss, and Ben Nelson. In other words, it has widespread support.

Dealing with formula issues is very difficult. They are not easy. They affect us all and we want to make sure we get it right.

The legislation we reported last month addresses the very issues the Senator from New York has brought up and is seeking to address on the appropriations bill. There is much I agree with in the amendment of the Senator from New York. I don't agree with her treatment of small States, because although she keeps the small-State minimum, as I read the language, she would treat the current .75 allocation as a ceiling. That is not the way it would be done under the legislation I have authored, nor is that the way that small States are handled under current law.

But there is much I agree with in the Senator's approach. We need to identify high-threat areas and we need to do vulnerability assessments. That means looking at military installations, ports, and looking at whether the State is a border State. There are many issues that need to be considered.

Our legislation carefully crafts a formula and fills out the outlines of the homeland security grants, which were treated only in a single paragraph in the original legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. We have made sure the money is passed on quickly, for example, from States to local governments and to the first responders. We have simplified the application process from 12 steps to 2. We have done away with a mountain of the paperwork and bureaucracy that has frustrated our State and local governments. And, yes, we call for an allocation right off the top for high-threat

areas and for vulnerability assessments.

Any modifications to the formulas for homeland security grants should be considered in a comprehensive, careful manner, as the committee has done. If the committee had not acted on this important issue, I would be more sympathetic to the arguments made by the Senator from New York. But, in fact, the committee has acted. We have held several hearings. We have reported legislation, which is pending for consideration by the full Senate.

If we attempt to change the formula on an ad hoc basis, we may end up with unintended consequences and a State may end up with insufficient homeland security resources. We obviously are very stressed because of budget constraints. We need to make sure the formula is carefully done. I believe the appropriations bill is not the right vehicle to pass important authorizing legislation affecting the allocation of funds. For this reason, I have not sought to attach my own bill to the appropriations vehicle, nor pieces of it, tempted though I am. Nor do I think the well-intentioned amendment of the Senator from New York, which calls for a change in the funding formula, which is directly in the jurisdiction of my committee, should be adopted on this appropriations bill.

I want to make an offer to the Senator from New York to work closely with her. New York obviously has challenges that are enormous when it comes to homeland security. I am very sympathetic to what a high-risk, high-vulnerability State the Senator so ably represents. So I want to work with her further on this as we bring our legislation to the floor. But I am reluctantly going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate amendment of the Senator from New York because, frankly, it doesn't belong on this bill, particularly when the committee of jurisdiction has acted to bring forth carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation to deal with this very issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations and best wishes to Virginia Davis Gill, Ph.D., on the occasion of her 90th birthday.

Born on July 17, 1913, Dr. Gill has dedicated her life to public service. Her career as a social worker, a school teacher, and a health administrator spanned over seven decades, reflecting Dr. Gill's commitment to serving her community. Indeed, Dr. Gill did not retire until she was 75 years of age.

Throughout her career, Dr. Gill's leadership included active involvement in the American Red Cross and serving as a national board member of United Cerebral Palsy. Following her retirement, Dr. Gill was selected to attend the 1995 White House Conference on Aging.

Dr. Gill lives in my home State of Maine, but she is loved here in Washington, DC, as well. Our own Attending Physician of the Capitol, the distinguished Dr. John Eisold, is presenting an American flag to his longtime friend to honor her birthday.

Together with Dr. Gill's brother, Mr. Wadsworth Davis, and her son, Mr.

Walter Gill, I join in saluting the life of this remarkable woman and in wishing her the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. President, I was pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Boxer, Coleman, Landrieu, Kohl & Murray in offering an amendment to authorize a Medicare demonstration project on pancreatic islet cell transplantation to help advance this tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for more than 1 million Americans with Type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and cochair 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. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of chairing a hearing featuring young delegates from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Children's Congress who had traveled to Washington from every State in the country to tell Congress what it is like to have diabetes, just how serious it is, and how important it is that we find a cure.

Diabetes is a devastating, lifelong condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. It is the

leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, a study released by the American Diabetes Association earlier this year estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year and that health spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for people with juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing life- threatening complications as well as a drastic 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.

I am 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 1921. Of the 257 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year. Amazingly, many of the transplant recipients have even reported a reversal of some of their complications, such as improved vision and less pain from neuropathy.

Earlier this year, I joined with my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance this significant research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with juvenile diabetes. The amendment we are introducing today is based on one of the provisions of that bill, which currently has 43 Senate cosponsors.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for 40 percent of new cases, and a significant percentage of individuals with Type 1 diabetes will experience kidney failure and become Medicare-eligible before they are 65. Medicare currently covers both kidney transplants and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants for these individuals. To help Medicare decide whether it should cover pancreatic islet cell transplants, the amendment authorizes a 5-year demonstration project to test the efficacy of pancreatic islet cell transplantation for individuals with Type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease, ESRD.

The cost of this demonstration would not be high. The Health Strategies Consultancy LLC, a highly regarded independent health policy firm, estimates that the net Federal cost of the proposal would be about $6.2 million in 2004 and about $84 million over 10 years.

The cost of the demonstration project is low because the number of islet cell transplants that could be performed is limited. Islet cells are extracted from a donated pancreas, and the number of pancreas donors is extremely small when compared to the number of Medicare beneficiaries who could benefit from islet cell transplants. In 2002, there were 1,875 pancreas donations, but there were over 27,000 Medicare beneficiaries who have diabetes as the primary cause of their end-stage renal disease and who might potentially benefit from islet cell transplants.

The Health Strategies' cost estimate does not include the financial benefits that would accrue to Medicare for the reduced medical care costs that would occur for beneficiaries who receive islet cell transplants and, as a result, suffer fewer diabetes-related complications such as kidney failure, heart disease, blindness and amputation. Since diabetes currently accounts for one out of every four Medicare dollars, I believe that this amendment actually holds much promise for reducing Medicare spending in the future.

I understand this demonstration project has been included in the Medicare prescription drug legislation that is being considered by the House. I hope that the Senate demonstrates similar wisdom, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for including provisions in S. 1 that will provide a measure of relief to rural health care providers, and in particular to home health agencies serving patients in rural areas. I am concerned, however, that the underlying bill does not go quite far enough and have filed an amendment with Senator Bond to increase the rural add-on payment for home health agencies to 10 percent. This was the amount of the payment prior to its expiration on April 1, and I believe it is the amount that is necessary to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services that they need.

Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically complex--services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be-- in the comfort and security of their own homes.

Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the longer travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits in a day as their urban counterparts. Saundra Scott-Adams, the executive director of the Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in Aroostook County, ME, where I am from, tells me her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 72,000. Her costs are understandably much higher than the average agency due to the long distances her staff must drive to see clients. And, her staff is not able to see as many patients.

Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher due to smaller scale operations. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a smaller number of patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit costs.

Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care than their urban counterparts, and are understandably more expensive for agencies to serve. If the rural add-on payment is not reinstated, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept rural patients with greater care needs, and access will suffer further.

The loss of the rural add-on has already caused many agencies to reduce their service areas. Some are eliminating services altogether in remote areas. There are some counties in Montana, for example, that have no home health services. And agencies in my home State of Maine have had to eliminate delivery of services to some of our outlying islands.

If the 10 percent rural add-on payment is not restored, it will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins and could force more of these agencies to close. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in a vast geographic area. If any of these agencies are forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region will lose complete access to home care.

There is strong support in the Senate for restoring the rural add-on. Earlier this month, 55 Senators joined me in sending a letter to the chair and ranking member of the senate Finance Committee urging that they extend the 10 per cent rural add-on for home health agencies, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

The chairman of the Finance Committee and his staff have been working with us to try to accommodate my amendment, and I am very appreciative of their efforts. I am hopeful that we will be able to work this out so that we will be able to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services that they need.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my congratulations to the town of Gray, Maine, as it celebrates its 225th anniversary. This charming town of 7,000 people boasts the first woolen mill in the United States. But even more important is Gray's contribution to our country during the Civil War. Gray sacrificed a greater percentage of men to this cause than any other town in the State of Maine. The Gray Celebration Days festival begins today, and I am pleased to acknowledge this special event, which celebrates the history of this outstanding Maine community.

I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue. He is an extraordinarily talented chairman of the HELP Committee who was able to bring people together on both sides of the aisle. This is yet another example of an outstanding achievement of the chairman, working together to benefit the people of this country. I do miss serving on the HELP Committee. I enjoyed the many issues the committee addresses, and this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend not only Chairman Gregg, but also Senators Schumer, McCain, and Kennedy, for all of their hard work on this comprehensive proposal.

The amendment we are offering today will make prescription drugs more affordable by promoting competition in the pharmaceutical industry to increase access to lower priced generic drugs while at the same time protecting innovation and preserving the incentives for companies to make the investments necessary to develop newer, better, and safer pharmaceuticals.

This amendment, which is based on legislation I joined Senators Schumer and McCain in introducing earlier this year, will make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that our original proposal would have cut our Nation's drug costs by some $60 billion over the next 10 years, and I understand this compromise proposal is

also expected to result in similar savings.

I will repeat that. There are very few bills we are ever going to consider that will result in cutting our Nation's health care costs. This proposal, according to the CBO, will help reduce the cost of prescription drugs by some $60 billion over the next decade. At a time when we are modernizing Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit, it is very important that this legislation be passed to help moderate the cost of prescription drugs.

Prescription drug spending in the United States has increased by 92 percent over the past 5 years. These soaring costs are a particular burden for millions of uninsured Americans, as well as for seniors on Medicare who now lack prescription drug coverage. Many of these individuals are simply priced out of the market or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the pills that keep them healthy.

Skyrocketing prescription drug costs are also putting the squeeze on our Nation's employers, who are struggling in the face of double-digit annual premium increases to continue to provide health insurance for their employees. They are exacerbating the Medicaid funding crisis that all of us are hearing about from our Governors back home as they struggle to bridge shortfalls in their States' budgets.

The 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act made significant changes in our patent laws that were intended to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the investments necessary to develop new drug products while enabling their competitors to bring lower priced generic alternatives to the market.

We should acknowledge that, toward that end, the Hatch-Waxman Act has succeeded to a large degree. Prior to the Hatch-Waxman Act passing, it took 3 to 5 years for generics to enter the marketplace after a brand name patent expired. Today, lower cost generics often enter the market immediately upon the expiration of the patent. As a consequence, consumers are saving anywhere from $8 billion to $10 billion a year by purchasing lower priced generic drugs.

There are even greater potential savings on the horizon. Within the next few years, the patents on brand name drugs with combined sales of $20 billion are set to expire. If the Hatch-Waxman Act were to work as it was intended, consumers could expect to save between 50 to 60 percent on these drugs as lower cost generics became available as these patents expired.

Despite its past success, however, it has become increasingly apparent that our patent laws in the Hatch-Waxman Act have been subject to abuse. While many pharmaceutical companies have acted in good faith, there is mounting evidence that some manufacturers have attempted to game the system by exploiting legal loopholes in the current law.

Too many pharmaceutical companies have maximized their profits at the expense of consumers by filing frivolous patents that have delayed access to the lower priced generics. Currently, brand name companies can delay a generic drug from going to market for years. A ``new'' patent for an existing drug can be awarded for merely changing the color of the pill or its packaging. There were examples cited by the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee last year.

One case involved the producer of a heart medication which brought a lawsuit for patent and trademark infringement against the generic manufacturer in early 1996. Instead of asking the generic company to pay damages, however, the brand name manufacturer offered a settlement to pay the generic company more than $80 million in return for keeping the generic drug off the market. In the meantime, the consumers of this heart medication, which treats high blood pressure, chest pains, and heart disease, were paying about $73 a month, while the generic would have cost them only $32 a month.

Last July, the FTC released a long-awaited report that found that brand name drug manufacturers had misused the loopholes to delay the entry of lower cost generics into the market. The FTC found that these tactics led to delays of between 4 and 40 months--that is over and above the first 30-month stay provided under the Hatch-Waxman Act--for generic competitors of at least eight drugs since 1992.

The FTC report pointed to two specific provisions of our patent laws--the automatic 30-month stay and the 180-day market exclusivity for the first generic to file a patent challenge--as being particularly vulnerable to strategies that could delay the entry of lower cost generics into the market. And it is precisely those two provisions which this carefully crafted compromise, which the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer, and Senator McCain have crafted, it is precisely those provisions that would be solved, and those loopholes would be closed by the amendment we are offering today.

The bipartisan amendment we are offering would restore the balance in the current laws. It would close the loopholes that have reduced the original law's effectiveness in bringing lower cost generic drugs to market more quickly.

Again, I salute the chairman for the tremendous work that was done on this important proposal. I am delighted it is being offered. I am proud to be a cosponsor. This will make a real difference in the drug bill, not only for consumers, not only for seniors, but employers, State governments, or anyone who is purchasing prescription drugs.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, today the Senate begins a truly historic debate on landmark legislation that will make affordable, comprehensive prescription drug benefits available to our Nation's seniors as well as to people with disabilities who receive Medicare benefits. This legislation is long overdue, but I am confident the Senate will, in fact, approve it before the Fourth of July. That is good news for our Nation's seniors.

The Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act that the Finance Committee approved last week represents the most significant expansion of the Medicare Program in its 38-year history. I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and the other members of the Finance Committee, including my senior colleague, Senator Snowe, for their hard work in devising and developing this important package.

We now have an unprecedented opportunity to make the improvements necessary to ensure that the Medicare Program can provide peace of mind to our Nation's seniors and true health security, not only to the 40 million American seniors who rely on Medicare today but to future generations as well. We want a strong Medicare Program that meets the needs of our grandparents, our parents, and our children's generation.

With recent advances in research, prescription drugs can become literally a lifeline for patients whose drug regimen protects them from becoming sicker. Prescription drugs reduce the need to treat serious illness through hospitalization and surgery. Soaring prescription drug costs, however, have placed a tremendous financial burden on millions of our seniors who must pay for these necessary drugs out of their own pockets. Monthly drug bills of $300, $400, or even $500 are not at all uncommon for older seniors living on limited incomes.

For example, Emery Jensen of Gorham, ME, has an annual drug bill of about $4,600. That is about one-quarter of the entire income he and his wife receive from Social Security. Another constituent from coastal Maine sent me a 2-page list of the medications her husband took over an 8-month period before he died. The total cost: Nearly $4,000. More and more, I am hearing disturbing accounts of older Americans who are running up huge high-interest credit card bills in order to buy medicine they could not otherwise afford. Even more alarming are the accounts of patients who are either skipping doses to stretch out their prescriptions or forced to choose between paying the bills or buying the pills that keep them healthy.

I will never forget an elderly woman coming up to me in the grocery store in Bangor and saying to me she was only able to get half the number of pills her doctor had prescribed because otherwise she would not be able to buy the food she needed. No senior in our country should be forced to choose between putting food on their table and buying the pills they need to remain healthy.

It is critical we bring Medicare into line with most private sector insurance plans and expand the program to include coverage for prescription drugs. The legislation before the Senate today will make prescription drug coverage a permanent part of Medicare. This is an important improvement over previous versions of this bill which had sunset dates which would have created tremendous anxiety for our seniors on whether this would be only a temporary program.

This bill will make this coverage permanently part of Medicare. It provides a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that will be available to all seniors in Medicare, regardless of where they live. Moreover, that benefit will be equal for everyone, both for those who choose to stay in the traditional program as well as for those seniors who elect one of the new programs, the new plan options available in the Medicare Advantage Program which is modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Beginning in 2006, seniors will be able to get comprehensive prescription drug coverage, including both upfront and catastrophic protection, for $35 a month premium. Moreover, low-income seniors will receive generous subsidies and get additional protections and assistance. The more than 9 million seniors nationwide, including 60,000 seniors living in Maine, who have incomes below 135 percent of the poverty level will not have to pay any premium to secure coverage. That 135 percent of poverty equals $12,120 for a single person and $16,360 for a couple. It is important we provide that extra assistance for these very low income elderly people who would be hard pressed even to afford that $35 a month. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen overnight. It will take some time for this new benefit to come online.

To provide some interim assistance, starting next year seniors will get prescription drug discount cards that will

save them between 15 and 25 percent on each drug purchase. Lower income seniors will receive a benefit of $600 on top of that starting next year.

There are also some other significant features in this bill. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor large urban areas and failed to take into account the needs of more rural States. This simply is not fair to States such as New Hampshire, which the Presiding Officer represents so ably, or my home State of Maine.

Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing cost effective high-quality care. We have a strange system where, if you delivered care in a low-cost manner, the formula actually penalizes you for doing so. In the early 1980s, lower than average costs in Maine were used to justify lower Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low- and high-cost States.

This is an issue on which I have been working my entire time in the Senate. I remember in the previous administration meeting with the head of what was then called the Health Care Financing Administration and her telling me that in fact the State of Maine ranked dead last in Medicare reimbursements. Since that time, I have worked hard to improve the reimbursements to Maine, and now we are up to about 46, but that still represents a tremendous inequity.

I am, therefore, particularly pleased the legislation before the Senate takes steps to strengthen the health care safety net by increasing Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals in rural States such as Maine to help even out the reimbursement and eliminate the inequities that have hurt rural States.

According to the American Hospital Association, the provisions in this bill will increase Medicare payments to hospitals in Maine by approximately $63 million over the next 10 years. That is a step in the right direction. It will be particularly helpful for our small community hospitals which are struggling to make ends meet. Those same hospitals tend to serve a population that is older, poorer, and sicker, so they particularly suffer when Medicare reimbursements are unfair because they simply do not cover the cost of treating this older, poorer, sicker population.

This legislation also restores funding to some extent for home health. That benefit has been cut far more deeply and abruptly than any benefit in the history of the Medicare Program. Earlier this month, 54 Senators, at my request, joined me in sending a letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee asking that they avoid any further cuts in home health care and extend the additional payment for home health services in rural areas that expired on April 1 of this year.

I am pleased the legislation before the Senate does provide for a full inflation update for home health agencies and also extends the rural add-on that is vital to sustaining home health care in rural areas of our country. Surveys have shown the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors.

While I am disappointed the Finance Committee reduced the add-on payment from 10 percent to 5 percent, at least it has been extended, and that will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to home health care services.

The Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act was approved by the Finance Committee by a strong 16 to 5 bipartisan vote. I think that bodes very well for the future of this legislation. At long last, this legislation holds out real hope to our seniors that they will finally receive an affordable, comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Since the cost of providing a meaningful drug benefit will only increase as time passes, it is imperative that we act now. I am pleased the majority leader has scheduled this legislation and set a goal of its passage before we adjourn for the July 4 recess.

Our senior citizens deserve no less from us. We must act. I am confident we will act to provide a long overdue prescription drug benefit.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over provisions

included in the Senate Energy bill that threaten the existing moratoria on leasing and preleasing activities related to oil drilling on Georges Bank, off the coast of Maine, and other areas of the outer continental shelf.

Section 105 of the Energy bill requires the Department of the Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire outer continental shelf. This provision would allow potentially damaging seismic technology in the vital fishing grounds of Georges Bank.

Georges Bank is a magnificent American resource. The unusual underwater topography and tidal activity of Georges Bank create an almost self-contained ecosystem, unique within the ocean that surrounds it. It is one of the most productive fisheries in the world, where Mainers and many others harvest cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, scallops, lobsters, swordfish, and herring.

Mainers have fished Georges Bank for hundreds of years. Hundreds of small communities in New England depend on fish from Georges Bank for economic support and their maritime-based way of life. In recent years, Maine's fishermen have made significant economic sacrifices to work toward sustainable and healthy fish stocks. I am extremely worried that any drilling activities, even preleasing activities, could destroy their work.

An oil spill on Georges Bank would have catastrophic effects on the Georges Bank ecosystem and the economies of the coastal communities of New England. Georges Bank experiences some of the most severe weather in the world, and the frequent storms, strong currents, and high winds would cripple any post-spill cleanup effort. For this reason, and because of its great biological value, many scientists, fishermen, and other persons concerned with and knowledgeable about the unique ecosystem of Georges Bank have urged that no drilling activities occur in this region.

I have long worked to protect Georges Bank from the potentially devastating impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling. In 1999, when the Government of Canada was considering whether or not to drill on Georges Bank, I introduced a resolution in the Senate that asked the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on drilling on the Canadian side of Georges Bank until 2012. I was very relieved when, several months later, Canada did indeed impose such a moratorium. The United States also has a moratorium on drilling Georges Bank until 2012.

This issue again arose in May of 2001, when the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee recommended to the Secretary of the Interior that she encourage congressional funding to assess the oil and gas potential of offshore areas covered by the moratorium. The recommendations also included a suggestion to explore lifting parts of the existing moratorium.

In response, I worked to include language in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the use of funds for offshore preleasing, leasing, or related activity on Georges Bank. Along with Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Snowe, I cosponsored an amendment that prohibits the Department of the Interior from spending any funds on leasing, preleasing, or related activities in Georges Bank and the entire North Atlantic, as well as the West Coast off California, Oregon, and Washington, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Our amendment was signed into law, and similar language has been included in subsequent Interior Appropriations bills.

I believe that Section 105 of the Energy bill is contradictory to the Interior Appropriations bill language and the expressed will of the Senate against the expenditure of funds for the use of preleasing activities in Georges Bank. I am pleased to join Senators Graham, Feinstein, Dole, and many others in cosponsoring an amendment that will remove these provisions from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.