Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Miller, Dole, McCain, Kerry, Chambliss and Specter in introducing the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 to modernize Medicare's outdated ``homebound'' requirement that has impeded access to needed home health services for many of our Nation's elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries.

Health care in America has gone full circle. People are spending less time in institutions, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions have increasingly been taking place in the home. The highly skilled and often technically complex care that our home health agencies provide has enabled millions of our most vulnerable older and disabled individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they belong--in the comfort and security of their own homes.

Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered ``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services. While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to qualify for benefits, his or her condition must be such that ``there exists a normal inability to leave home.'' The statute does allow for absences from the home that are ``infrequent'' or of ``relatively short duration.'' It also gives specific permission for the individual to leave home to attend medical appointments, adult day care or religious services.

Unfortunately, however, the statute does not define precisely what ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration'' means. It leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short those absences must be. Interpretations of this definition have therefore varied widely.

As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries--who are dependent upon Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival--into virtual prisoners in their own home.

The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, disabled Medicare patients. For example, last year I met with David Jayne, a 41-year-old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who is confined to a wheelchair and cannot swallow, speak or even breathe on his own. Mr. Jayne needs skilled nursing visits each week to enable him to remain independent and out of an inpatient facility. Despite his disability, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with youth and church groups. Speaking through a computerized voice synthesizer, he gives inspirational talks about how the human spirit can endure and even overcome great hardship.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne and his activities, including a report about how he had, with the help of family and friends, attended a football game to root for the University of Georgia Bulldogs. A few days later, at the direction of the fiscal intermediary, his home health agency--which had been sending a health care worker to his home for two hours, four mornings a week-- notified him that he could no longer be considered homebound, and that his benefits were being cut off. While his benefits were subsequently reinstated due to the media attention given the case, this experience motivated him to launch a crusade to modernize the homebound definition and led him to found the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction.

The fact is that the current requirement reflects an outmoded view of life for persons who live with serious disabilities. The homebound criteria may have made sense thirty years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might have expected to live in the confines of their home--perhaps cared for by an extended family. The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals that allow them brief periods of relative wellness.

It also fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity and physical stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the body and mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four walls of a home.

The David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 will create an exception to the homebound restriction based on the severity of the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition. The specific, limited exception to the homebound rule would apply to individuals who: one, have been certified by a physician as having a permanent and severe condition that will not improve; two, who will need assistance with three or more of the five activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing and bathing, for the rest of their lives; three, who require technological and/or personal assistance with the act of leaving home; and four, who are only able to leave home because the services provided through the home health benefit makes it possible for them to do so.

We believe that our legislation is budget neutral because it is specifically limited to individuals who are already eligible for Medicare and whose conditions require the assistance of a skilled nurse, therapist or home health

aide to make it functionally possible for them to leave the home. Our legislation does not expand Medicare eligibility--it simply gives people who are already eligible for the benefit their freedom.

This issue was first brought to my attention by former Senator Bob Dole, who has long been a vigorous advocate for people with disabilities, and I ask unanimous consent that the editorial Senator Dole wrote for the Washington Post last summer entitled ``Imprisoned by Medicare'' be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Our proposal is also supported by the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, the National Association for Home Care, Advancing Independence: Modernizing Medicare and Medicaid, AIMM, the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Half the Planet Foundation.

Moreover, the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 is consistent with President Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative'' which has, as its goal, the removal of barriers that impede opportunities for those with disabilities to integrate more fully into the community. By allowing reasonable absences from the home, our legislation will bring the Medicare home health benefit into the 21st Century, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it done.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in introducing this important bill to provide Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services used to screen for diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families. Diabetes is a devastating, lifelong condition that disproportionately affects the elderly, children and minorities. It is one of our Nation's most costly diseases in both human and economic terms, and is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, it is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease and other chronic conditions. According to a new study released by the American Diabetes Association, diabetes cost our Nation $132 billion last year, and health care spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

Unfortunately, diabetes frequently goes undiagnosed. Of the more than 17 million Americans who have diabetes, 7 million of whom are 65 and older, it is estimated that as many as one third don't know it. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition that places them at increased risk of developing devastating and costly complications such as blindness, kidney failure and amputations.

Moreover, an additional 16 million Americans have a newly identified condition known as ``pre-diabetes,'' an increasingly common condition in which blood glucose levels are higher than normal, but not yet diabetic. Pre-diabetes dramatically raises the risk for developing Type 2 diabetes and increases the risk of heart disease by 50 percent. According to research supported by the Department of Health and Human Services, most people with pre-diabetes are likely to develop diabetes within a decade unless their condition is diagnosed and they make the lifestyle changes necessary to reduce their risks for the disease.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has made diabetes prevention and management a key part of the Bush Administration's broader efforts to encourage a healthier America. As a part of this effort, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services have joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age forty-five and older to get screened for diabetes.

Unfortunately, however, current law does not allow Medicare to pay for diabetes testing, even for patients with serious risk factors for diabetes, such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Astoundingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications such as blindness or kidney disease, Medicare will not pay for diabetes testing.

This coverage omission is particularly irrational given the fact that one out of every four Medicare dollars is currently spent on medical care for seniors who are living with diabetes.

Early detection and treatment are essential if we are to improve the quality of life for people with diabetes and prevent or delay the onset of the costly and sometimes deadly complications associated with the disease. We have the technology to identify diabetes even before the onset of any symptoms. These tests have the potential of improving and saving thousands of lives, not to mention countless Medicare dollars. It only makes sense that Medicare should cover them.

Both the American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists support our legislation, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Illinois in reintroducing this legislation to recognize and promote bicycling's important impact on energy savings and public health.

With America becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, it is vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make toward solving our Nation's energy challenges.

This legislation would establish a Conserve by Bike pilot program that would oversee pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips. Right now, fewer than one trip in one hundred is by bicycle. If we could increase this statistic to one and a half trips per hundred, we would save over 462 million gallons of gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million.

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

The Conserve by Bike Act has received widespread support on the national, state, and local level, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2003, a bill designed to promote the fair and equitable settlement of civil rights claims. I am very pleased to be joined today by Senators Grassley, Daschle, Bingaman, Cochran, and Sarbanes.

The primary purpose of this bill is to remedy an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision has had a direct and negative impact on plaintiffs who successfully prove that they have been subjected to intentional employment discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights.

The problem is compounded by the fact that plaintiffs are now taxed on the entirety of their settlements or damage awards in civil rights cases, despite the fact that a portion of a settlement or award must be paid to the plaintiff's attorney, who in turn is taxed on the same funds. This double taxation of attorneys' fees awards penalizes Americans who win their civil rights cases.

I would like to share one example of how individuals can be harmed by the current taxation scheme, and even discouraged from challenging workplace discrimination. The example was brought to my attention by David Webbert, an attorney who practices in Augusta, ME--my State's capital. In one of his cases, David represented a person who successfully challenged a business' policy of discriminating against persons with a particular type of disability. As a result of the case, the discriminatory policy was declared illegal and was ended. Although the plaintiff did not receive any monetary damages in the case, the law did provide for payment of attorney's fees, which were paid by the defendant's insurance company. Because of the current law's double taxation of attorney's fees, they were taxable to the plaintiff in this case, despite the fact that they were also taxable to the attorney. In short, plaintiffs in civil rights cases like this could have to pay taxes even though they receive no monetary award. Or, in other words, under current law, a plaintiff can actually be penalized financially for bringing a meritorious case against a company's discriminatory policies.

Our bill would eliminate the unfair taxation of civil rights victims' settlements and court awards--taxation that adds insult to a civil rights victim's injury and serves as a barrier to the just settlement of civil rights claims.

Our bill would change the taxation of awards received by individuals that result from judgments in or settlements of employment discrimination cases. First, the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed but for a claimed violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay.'' Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Third, the bill would change the tax code so that people who bring civil rights cases are not taxed on the portion of any award paid as fees to their attorney. This provision would eliminate the double-taxation of such fees, which would still be taxable income to the attorney.

The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes that are now levied.

Our bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the No FEAR Coalition, the Religious Action Committee for Reform Judaism, the Society for Human Resource Management, and others. This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this common sense legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Illinois in reintroducing this legislation to recognize and promote bicycling's important impact on energy savings and public health.

With America becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, it is vital that we look to the contribution that bike travel can make toward solving our Nation's energy challenges.

This legislation would establish a Conserve by Bike pilot program that would oversee pilot projects throughout the country designed to conserve energy resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips. Right now, fewer than one trip in one hundred is by bicycle. If we could increase this statistic to one and a half trips per hundred, we would save over 462 million gallons of gasoline in a year, worth over $721 million.

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

The Conserve by Bike Act has received widespread support on the national, state, and local level, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2003, a bill designed to promote the fair and equitable settlement of civil rights claims. I am very pleased to be joined today by Senators Grassley, Daschle, Bingaman, Cochran, and Sarbanes.

The primary purpose of this bill is to remedy an unintended consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which made damage awards that are not based on ``physical injuries or physical sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause physical injuries, this provision has had a direct and negative impact on plaintiffs who successfully prove that they have been subjected to intentional employment discrimination or other intentional violations of their civil rights.

The problem is compounded by the fact that plaintiffs are now taxed on the entirety of their settlements or damage awards in civil rights cases, despite the fact that a portion of a settlement or award must be paid to the plaintiff's attorney, who in turn is taxed on the same funds. This double taxation of attorneys' fees awards penalizes Americans who win their civil rights cases.

I would like to share one example of how individuals can be harmed by the current taxation scheme, and even discouraged from challenging workplace discrimination. The example was brought to my attention by David Webbert, an attorney who practices in Augusta, ME--my State's capital. In one of his cases, David represented a person who successfully challenged a business' policy of discriminating against persons with a particular type of disability. As a result of the case, the discriminatory policy was declared illegal and was ended. Although the plaintiff did not receive any monetary damages in the case, the law did provide for payment of attorney's fees, which were paid by the defendant's insurance company. Because of the current law's double taxation of attorney's fees, they were taxable to the plaintiff in this case, despite the fact that they were also taxable to the attorney. In short, plaintiffs in civil rights cases like this could have to pay taxes even though they receive no monetary award. Or, in other words, under current law, a plaintiff can actually be penalized financially for bringing a meritorious case against a company's discriminatory policies.

Our bill would eliminate the unfair taxation of civil rights victims' settlements and court awards--taxation that adds insult to a civil rights victim's injury and serves as a barrier to the just settlement of civil rights claims.

Our bill would change the taxation of awards received by individuals that result from judgments in or settlements of employment discrimination cases. First, the bill excludes from gross income amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation attributable to services that were to be performed, known as ``backpay,'' or that would have been performed but for a claimed violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay.'' Second, award amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not suffered discrimination. Third, the bill would change the tax code so that people who bring civil rights cases are not taxed on the portion of any award paid as fees to their attorney. This provision would eliminate the double-taxation of such fees, which would still be taxable income to the attorney.

The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to settle claims based on the damages suffered, not on the excessive taxes that are now levied.

Our bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the No FEAR Coalition, the Religious Action Committee for Reform Judaism, the Society for Human Resource Management, and others. This bill is a ``win-win'' for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. I invite my colleagues to join in support of this common sense legislation.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long 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 new study released by the American Diabetes Association last week estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year, and that health care 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 children and young adults with type 1, or 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 devastating, 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 in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the approximately 200 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year.

Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment-- which uses more islet cells and a less toxic combination of immunosuppressive drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild and the therapy has been generally well tolerated by most patients.

Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has side effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in children. Researcher, however, are working hard to find a way to reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the most immediate chance to achieve a cure for type 1 diabetes, and the research is moving forward rapidly.

New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.

The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations OPOs--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research.

Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the Federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation-- while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warrented since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such remarkable results.

To help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the health-related quality of life outcomes for individuals with juvenile diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

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 age 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, our legislation authorizes a demonstration project to test the efficacy of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants

and islet transplants following a kidney transplant for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end stage renal disease ESRD.

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

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species.

Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast- growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.

Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international community on the development and implementation of an international program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American negotiators for working with the international community to address this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the international convention will be at least as protective as the legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long 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 new study released by the American Diabetes Association last week estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year, and that health care 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 children and young adults with type 1, or 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 devastating, 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 in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the approximately 200 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year.

Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment-- which uses more islet cells and a less toxic combination of immunosuppressive drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild and the therapy has been generally well tolerated by most patients.

Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has side effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in children. Researcher, however, are working hard to find a way to reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the most immediate chance to achieve a cure for type 1 diabetes, and the research is moving forward rapidly.

New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.

The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations OPOs--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research.

Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the Federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation-- while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warrented since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such remarkable results.

To help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the health-related quality of life outcomes for individuals with juvenile diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

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 age 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, our legislation authorizes a demonstration project to test the efficacy of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants

and islet transplants following a kidney transplant for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end stage renal disease ESRD.

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

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species.

Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast- growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.

Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international community on the development and implementation of an international program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American negotiators for working with the international community to address this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the international convention will be at least as protective as the legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

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

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways.

The problem Maine faces because of the disparity in truck weight limit is perhaps most pronounced in our State capital. Augusta is the Maine Turnpike's northern terminus where heavy trucks that are prohibited from traveling along the northern segment of Interstate 95 enter and exit the turnpike. The high number of trucks that must traverse Augusta's local roads, and particularly its two rotaries, creates a hazard for those who live and work in as well as visit the city.

The Maine Department of Transportation estimates that the truck weight disparity sends 310 vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds through Augusta every day. These vehicles, which are sometimes transporting hazardous materials, must pass through Cony Circle, one of the State's most dangerous traffic circles and the scene of 130 accidents per year. The fact that the circle

is named for the 1,200 student high school that it abuts adds to the severity of the problem.

A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce the highway miles and travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads will be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety, and would receive the input of a panel that would include State officials, safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate Highway System.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and on to local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

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

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System forces trucks traveling to and from destinations in these States and provinces to use Maine's State and local roads, nearly all of which have two lanes, rather than four. Consequently, many Maine communities along the interstate see substantially more truck traffic than would otherwise be the case if the weight limit were 100,000 pounds for all of Maine's interstate highways.

The problem Maine faces because of the disparity in truck weight limit is perhaps most pronounced in our State capital. Augusta is the Maine Turnpike's northern terminus where heavy trucks that are prohibited from traveling along the northern segment of Interstate 95 enter and exit the turnpike. The high number of trucks that must traverse Augusta's local roads, and particularly its two rotaries, creates a hazard for those who live and work in as well as visit the city.

The Maine Department of Transportation estimates that the truck weight disparity sends 310 vehicles in excess of 80,000 pounds through Augusta every day. These vehicles, which are sometimes transporting hazardous materials, must pass through Cony Circle, one of the State's most dangerous traffic circles and the scene of 130 accidents per year. The fact that the circle

is named for the 1,200 student high school that it abuts adds to the severity of the problem.

A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce the highway miles and travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network and local roads will be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic. Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for 3 years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety, and would receive the input of a panel that would include State officials, safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate Highway System.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and on to local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. I hope my colleagues will support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who are struggling to make a living on the sea.

Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a culture and a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by excessive regulation and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, New England's fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in danger if disappearing, likely to be replaced by development. When that happens, a part of Maine's heritage is lost forever.

Today, I am introducing a package of amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Act that will deliver a resource management strategy that is balanced, responsive, and sensible. It recognizes the fishermen's strong commitment to conserving the stocks, and acknowledges fishermen as partners in fisheries management.

The Fisheries Science and Management Improvement Act of 2003 will address much needed improvements in the science and regulatory standards of fisheries management. The Nation's fisheries management system, as it is currently designed, is broken. If anyone doubts this is the case, I want to point out that more than 100 lawsuits are currently pending against the Department of Commerce involving fisheries management plans.

Litigation is no way to manage one of our Nation's most important ecological and economic resources. The fact is, the courts are simply not well-suited to making biological and regulatory decisions. Fisheries management is best left to those who know the subject best: the fishermen, scientists, and regulators working together cooperatively.

No one in the country knows this better than New England groundfishermen. Over the last two years, a court case has thrown New England's groundfishing industry into a crisis. The case ended when a Federal judge ordered severe restrictions on groundfishing, including a 20-percent

cut in Days-at-Sea. The effect of this court order has been simply catastrophic for New England's groundfishing industry--an industry made up of small, independently-owned, and often family-owned, businesses.

These severe restrictions were ordered despite the fact that the science clearly demonstrates that the biomass for New England groundfish has increased every year since 1996. If the biomass is increasing, and the stock is clearly rebuilding, it makes no sense to enforce an arbitrarily structured and unscientifically based timeframe on the rebuilding process. This is especially true when the survival of a culture is at stake.

My legislation would inject consistency and common-sense standards into the fisheries management process: it addresses the importance of solid and reliable science in fisheries management. It strengthens the definition of ``best scientific information available'' and requires scientific data, including all stock assessments, to be peer-reviewed and to include the consideration of anecdotal information gathered from the people who know fishing best--the fishermen themselves. My bill ensures that the process of rebuilding stocks is based on rational and comprehensive science. Under current law, when fisheries are classified as overfished, the Councils are required to implement rebuilding plans to attain a historic high level of abundance within ten years, regardless of whether or not the current state of the marine environment can sustain such an abundance level. My bill redefines the concept of ``overfishing'' to take into consideration natural fluctuations in the marine environment. It also eliminates the ten-year rebuilding requirement--a requirement that has no foundation in science--and requires rebuilding periods to take into consideration the biology of the fish stock and the economic impact on fishing communities.

The legislation also addresses problems with the current conception of Essential Fish Habitat. Currently, the entire Exclusive Economic Zone has been defined as Essential Fish Habitat instead of more discrete units of habitat as originally conceived. Further, current law allows the Councils to regulate the impacts of fishing activity on Essential Fish Habitat, while the Councils cannot regulate other commercial activities--such as mining and coastal development and the laying of telecommunications cables--that affect these areas. My bill focuses the management of these areas on ``Habitat Areas of Particular Concern''--more discrete units of fish habitat that are more consistent with the congressional intent behind the Essential Fish Habitat concept.

My proposal treats the fishing industry as a legitimate interest in fisheries management by acknowledging the important role that commercial fishing plays in food security and healthy food consumption. My bill also ensures that the cumulative economic and social impacts of fisheries management decisions are considered, rather than assessed in isolation from one another.

Finally, the legislation would reduce the litigation burden on the fisheries management system. My proposal ensures that fishery management plans are pre-determined to be compliant with NEPA requirements, thereby preventing NEPA law from being used in an incorrect way to regulate fisheries. It would still require fishery management plans to meet all the other conservation provisions, including those governing rebuilding of overfished stocks, set out in the law. The Nation's Councils have asked for this protection from lawsuits so they may resume their proper role as a regulatory body.

I want to acknowledge the important role that my colleagues Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chair and Ranking Member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, are playing in addressing the problems of Magnuson- Stevens. My hope is that my proposal will help propel a discussion in the upcoming months as their committee moves forward with their own ideas.

The second piece of legislation I am offering is the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kerry has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his state and throughout the country.

The release of the movie The Perfect Storm provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living in the fishing industry. While based on a true story, the movie merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie.

Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing is among the nation's most dangerous occupations. According to data compiled by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 150 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation.

The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing communities as a year marked by tragedy. All told, nine commercial fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine in the year 2000, exceeding the combined casualties of the three previous years.

Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been worse. Heroic acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most of these circumstances, these fishermen were returned to their families because they had access to safety equipment that made the difference between life and death.

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

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

The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code.

I believe these two bills will assist our Nation's fishermen as they struggle to make their living on the seas. Fishing is a legitimate profession that deserves to be treated with the common-sense and consistency that we treat other professions. The legislation I am introducing gives these communities the tools they need to safely make their living in a way that still protects the resource.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who are struggling to make a living on the sea.

Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a culture and a way of life. This way of life is being threatened, however, by excessive regulation and unnecessary litigation. Despite scientific evidence of a rebound in fish stocks, New England's fishermen are suffering under ever more burdensome restrictions. Everyday, I hear from fishermen who struggle to support their families because they have been deprived of their right to make an honest living on the seas. The ``working waterfronts'' of our communities are in danger if disappearing, likely to be replaced by development. When that happens, a part of Maine's heritage is lost forever.

Today, I am introducing a package of amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Act that will deliver a resource management strategy that is balanced, responsive, and sensible. It recognizes the fishermen's strong commitment to conserving the stocks, and acknowledges fishermen as partners in fisheries management.

The Fisheries Science and Management Improvement Act of 2003 will address much needed improvements in the science and regulatory standards of fisheries management. The Nation's fisheries management system, as it is currently designed, is broken. If anyone doubts this is the case, I want to point out that more than 100 lawsuits are currently pending against the Department of Commerce involving fisheries management plans.

Litigation is no way to manage one of our Nation's most important ecological and economic resources. The fact is, the courts are simply not well-suited to making biological and regulatory decisions. Fisheries management is best left to those who know the subject best: the fishermen, scientists, and regulators working together cooperatively.

No one in the country knows this better than New England groundfishermen. Over the last two years, a court case has thrown New England's groundfishing industry into a crisis. The case ended when a Federal judge ordered severe restrictions on groundfishing, including a 20-percent

cut in Days-at-Sea. The effect of this court order has been simply catastrophic for New England's groundfishing industry--an industry made up of small, independently-owned, and often family-owned, businesses.

These severe restrictions were ordered despite the fact that the science clearly demonstrates that the biomass for New England groundfish has increased every year since 1996. If the biomass is increasing, and the stock is clearly rebuilding, it makes no sense to enforce an arbitrarily structured and unscientifically based timeframe on the rebuilding process. This is especially true when the survival of a culture is at stake.

My legislation would inject consistency and common-sense standards into the fisheries management process: it addresses the importance of solid and reliable science in fisheries management. It strengthens the definition of ``best scientific information available'' and requires scientific data, including all stock assessments, to be peer-reviewed and to include the consideration of anecdotal information gathered from the people who know fishing best--the fishermen themselves. My bill ensures that the process of rebuilding stocks is based on rational and comprehensive science. Under current law, when fisheries are classified as overfished, the Councils are required to implement rebuilding plans to attain a historic high level of abundance within ten years, regardless of whether or not the current state of the marine environment can sustain such an abundance level. My bill redefines the concept of ``overfishing'' to take into consideration natural fluctuations in the marine environment. It also eliminates the ten-year rebuilding requirement--a requirement that has no foundation in science--and requires rebuilding periods to take into consideration the biology of the fish stock and the economic impact on fishing communities.

The legislation also addresses problems with the current conception of Essential Fish Habitat. Currently, the entire Exclusive Economic Zone has been defined as Essential Fish Habitat instead of more discrete units of habitat as originally conceived. Further, current law allows the Councils to regulate the impacts of fishing activity on Essential Fish Habitat, while the Councils cannot regulate other commercial activities--such as mining and coastal development and the laying of telecommunications cables--that affect these areas. My bill focuses the management of these areas on ``Habitat Areas of Particular Concern''--more discrete units of fish habitat that are more consistent with the congressional intent behind the Essential Fish Habitat concept.

My proposal treats the fishing industry as a legitimate interest in fisheries management by acknowledging the important role that commercial fishing plays in food security and healthy food consumption. My bill also ensures that the cumulative economic and social impacts of fisheries management decisions are considered, rather than assessed in isolation from one another.

Finally, the legislation would reduce the litigation burden on the fisheries management system. My proposal ensures that fishery management plans are pre-determined to be compliant with NEPA requirements, thereby preventing NEPA law from being used in an incorrect way to regulate fisheries. It would still require fishery management plans to meet all the other conservation provisions, including those governing rebuilding of overfished stocks, set out in the law. The Nation's Councils have asked for this protection from lawsuits so they may resume their proper role as a regulatory body.

I want to acknowledge the important role that my colleagues Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chair and Ranking Member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, are playing in addressing the problems of Magnuson- Stevens. My hope is that my proposal will help propel a discussion in the upcoming months as their committee moves forward with their own ideas.

The second piece of legislation I am offering is the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation. Senator Kerry has been a leader in the effort to sustain our fisheries and to maintain the proud fishing tradition that exists in his state and throughout the country.

The release of the movie The Perfect Storm provided millions of Americans with a glimpse of the challenges and dangers associated with earning a living in the fishing industry. While based on a true story, the movie merely scratches the surface of what it is like to be a modern-day fisherman. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with extensive regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing, where disaster can strike in conditions that are far less extreme than those depicted by the movie.

Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing is among the nation's most dangerous occupations. According to data compiled by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 536 fishermen have lost their lives at sea since 1994. In fact, with an annual fatality rate of about 150 deaths per 100,000 workers, fishing is 30 times more dangerous than the average occupation.

The year 2000 will always be remembered in Maine's fishing communities as a year marked by tragedy. All told, nine commercial fishermen lost their lives off the coast of Maine in the year 2000, exceeding the combined casualties of the three previous years.

Yet as tragic as the year was, it could have been worse. Heroic acts by the Coast Guard and other fishermen resulted in the rescue of 13 commercial fishermen off the coast of Maine in the year 2000. In most of these circumstances, these fishermen were returned to their families because they had access to safety equipment that made the difference between life and death.

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

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

The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2003 lends a hand to fishermen attempting to prepare in case disaster strikes. My bill provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code.

I believe these two bills will assist our Nation's fishermen as they struggle to make their living on the seas. Fishing is a legitimate profession that deserves to be treated with the common-sense and consistency that we treat other professions. The legislation I am introducing gives these communities the tools they need to safely make their living in a way that still protects the resource.

Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the Committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 26, 2003, a majority of the members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in submitting a resolution to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Associations Week in honor of these health care heroes who are dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession.

The Visiting Nurse Associations, VNAs, of today are founded on the principle that people who are sick, disabled and elderly benefit most from health care when it is offered in their own homes. Home care is an increasingly important part of our health care system today. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically complex--services that the VNAs provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable patients to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes.

Visiting Nurse Associations are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. VNAs literally created the profession and practice of home health care more than one hundred years ago, at a time when there were no hospitals in many communities and patients were cared for at home by families who did the best they could. VNAs made a critical difference to these families, bringing professional skills into the home to care for the patient and support the family. They made a critical difference in the late 19th century, and are making a critical difference now as we embark upon the 21st.

VNAs were pioneers in the public health movement, and, in the late 1800s, VNA responsiveness meant running milk banks, combating infectious diseases, and providing care for the poor during massive influenza epidemics. Today, that same responsiveness means caring for the dependent elderly, the chronically disabled, and the terminally ill--some of our most vulnerable citizens--and providing high-tech services previously provided in hospitals, such as ventilator care, blood transfusions, pain management and home chemotherapy.

Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in the hospital. More and more procedures are being done on an outpatient basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions has increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover, the number of Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in some way continues to grow each year. Once again, VNAs are making a critical difference, providing comprehensive home health services and caring support to patients and their families across the country

There currently are approximately 500 VNAs nationwide. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing health care into the homes of an estimated three million Americans every year. VNAs are truly the heart of home care in this country today, and it is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide to their patients and their families. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Feingold and me in cosponsoring this resolution establishing an annual National Visiting Nurse Associations' Week.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing or horseback riding.

Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, of 1996.

While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am extremely concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities.

The rule states that: ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries, a broken arm for instance, would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen.

Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected.

This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.''

Millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident.

The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.