Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, would the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Would the Senator from Utah be so kind as to explain the ABA rating system under which it is my understanding that Mr. Estrada received the highest possible rating? Would the Senator further explain whether there was a split rating, or whether it was unanimous, and what the general concession of those on the other side of the aisle has been toward ABA ratings in the past?

Mr. President, would the Senator from Utah yield for just one more followup question on the ABA?

Is the Senator from Utah aware of any other case in which a judicial nominee received a highly qualified rating from the ABA and was subject to a filibuster on the Senate floor?

I thank the Senator from Utah for clarifying this issue for the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in introducing the Clean Power Act of 2003. This bill will remove the loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 years.

Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all but a handful of states. Maine also has one of the lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide.

Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental consciousness of both the citizens and industries of Maine, Maine still suffers from air pollution. Every lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a state mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, one of the most beautiful national parks in the Nation, experiences days in which visibility is obscured by smog.

Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired power plants that use loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. A single coal-fired power plant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine combined.

As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost all power plants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted by these power plants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into our lakes and

streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment.

A single power plant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single year. That's equivalent to incinerating over 1 million mercury thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero power plant emissions of mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent by 2009.

I am pleased that there has been so much recognition recently of the problems that so many States are facing on clean air. President Bush has proposed a ``Clear Skies'' initiative that will reduce emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Last year, Senators Carper, Chafee, Breaux, and Baucus also introduced legislation that would reduce these pollutants, as well as carbon dioxide.

There are important differences between these proposals. The Jeffords/Collins bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious proposal, and it provides the benefits sooner. However, any step which reduces air pollution is a step in the right direction. Our parks and our people have waited far too long for clean air.

I think virtually everyone agrees that we need to reduce power plant pollution. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.

Mr. President, today, I rise to offer to the Senate some good news for our mailers and, indeed, anyone who uses the United States Postal Service. The USPS, which has been losing significant amounts of money in recent years despite repeated increases in postage rates, has determined that its finances are in better order than previously thought. If Congress acts expeditiously on legislation that I am introducing today along with my colleague, Senator Carper, the Postal Service will avoid an imminent rate hike.

In recent years, the United States Postal Service has been raising postal rates at a rapid pace. When the USPS last raised rates in 2002, it was the third such rate increase during an 18-month period. Such steep, irregular rate increases make it very difficult for businesses to plan for their postal costs. This is a particular problem for

catalog companies and magazine publishers, which set their prices in advance based on assumptions about postal rates. Mailing costs for some smaller catalog businesses, I am told, now can exceed production costs.

In so many ways, postage rate increases have a significant economic impact. As rates increase, so do the costs Americans bear to send letters, mail packages, and pay their bills. Rate increases also raise the cost of goods, which, of course, reflect not only the cost to ship but also the cost to advertise by mail.

But rate increases reflect the price of maintaining an ever-expanding postal network and the infrastructure to sustain it. Each year, the Postal Service adds 1.7 million new addresses. This equates to 4,800 new letter carriers making deliveries to over 513 million new delivery stops each year, all while maintaining one of the lowest first-class letter rates in the world.

In addition to providing a critical service to individual postal patrons, the Postal Service is a powerful economic engine. The USPS is the eleventh largest enterprise in the Nation with $66 billion in annual revenue, more than Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca Cola combined. While the Postal Service itself employs more than 700,000 career employees, it is also the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing and paper production.

That is why the deteriorating state of the United States Postal Service's finances has been a source of great concern to many of us. After several years of large losses, the USPS has been slowly approaching its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion.

A few months ago, however, the Office of Personnel Management discovered that the USPS will dramatically over-fund its contributions to the Civil Service Retirement Fund unless the law is changed. After having based the Postal Service's annual contributions on the assumption that it had an actuarial deficit of $32 billion, OPM discovered instead that the USPS's CSRS deficit was actually only $5 billion. The difference is primarily due to higher than expected yields on pension investments by the Department of the Treasury. If the USPS continues to fund the CSRS at its current pace, it will over-fund its CSRS liability by $78 billion.

If Congress approves the changes to the payment schedule as my bill provides, the Postal Service's CSRS retirement expense would be reduced by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 and another $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. The USPS would be able to reduce its debt by more than $3 billion in fiscal year 2003, and anticipated rate increases would be delayed until at least 2006, ushering in an era of stable and predictable postal rates.

My initial response upon hearing this good news was one of pleasant surprise but mixed, I admit, with a healthy dose of skepticism. As the old saying goes, ``if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' However, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the U.S. Treasury Department, have confirmed OPM's analysis. Further, having spoken with experts outside the government as well, I have become satisfied that this situation represents a rare exception to the rule.

That is why Senator Carper and I today introduce the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Act of 2003. Our bill will correct the statutory funding mechanism for the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS. This legislation is necessary to prevent the overpayment of retirement contributions by the U.S. Postal Service. Most important, this bill directs OPM to determine a new amortization schedule that will pay off the Postal Service's existing unfunded CSRS liability of $5 billion.

In addition, the legislation requires that the savings resulting from this Act be used to reduce the postal debt in a manner that the Secretary of Treasury shall specify. It also expresses the sense of Congress that the Postal Service should use these savings to fulfill its commitment to hold postal rates unchanged until at least 2006, to begin to pay a portion of their massive unfunded health care liabilities, and that the savings not be used to pay bonuses to Postal Service executives.

The USPS needs other changes as well, something acknowledged by everyone inside and outside the Postal Service. I was pleased that President Bush appointed a Commission on the U.S. Postal Service that is modeled along the principles outlined in legislation I introduced last year. I am hopeful that when the Commission reports this summer, it will provide us with a blueprint to ensure that our postal system is ready to serve twenty-first century America as ably as it has served us in the past. I look forward to receiving the Commission's report and any recommendations for legislation it may include.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in introducing the Clean Power Act of 2003. This bill will remove the loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 years.

Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all but a handful of states. Maine also has one of the lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide.

Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental consciousness of both the citizens and industries of Maine, Maine still suffers from air pollution. Every lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a state mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, one of the most beautiful national parks in the Nation, experiences days in which visibility is obscured by smog.

Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired power plants that use loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. A single coal-fired power plant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine combined.

As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost all power plants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted by these power plants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into our lakes and

streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment.

A single power plant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single year. That's equivalent to incinerating over 1 million mercury thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero power plant emissions of mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent by 2009.

I am pleased that there has been so much recognition recently of the problems that so many States are facing on clean air. President Bush has proposed a ``Clear Skies'' initiative that will reduce emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Last year, Senators Carper, Chafee, Breaux, and Baucus also introduced legislation that would reduce these pollutants, as well as carbon dioxide.

There are important differences between these proposals. The Jeffords/Collins bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious proposal, and it provides the benefits sooner. However, any step which reduces air pollution is a step in the right direction. Our parks and our people have waited far too long for clean air.

I think virtually everyone agrees that we need to reduce power plant pollution. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.

Mr. President, today, I rise to offer to the Senate some good news for our mailers and, indeed, anyone who uses the United States Postal Service. The USPS, which has been losing significant amounts of money in recent years despite repeated increases in postage rates, has determined that its finances are in better order than previously thought. If Congress acts expeditiously on legislation that I am introducing today along with my colleague, Senator Carper, the Postal Service will avoid an imminent rate hike.

In recent years, the United States Postal Service has been raising postal rates at a rapid pace. When the USPS last raised rates in 2002, it was the third such rate increase during an 18-month period. Such steep, irregular rate increases make it very difficult for businesses to plan for their postal costs. This is a particular problem for

catalog companies and magazine publishers, which set their prices in advance based on assumptions about postal rates. Mailing costs for some smaller catalog businesses, I am told, now can exceed production costs.

In so many ways, postage rate increases have a significant economic impact. As rates increase, so do the costs Americans bear to send letters, mail packages, and pay their bills. Rate increases also raise the cost of goods, which, of course, reflect not only the cost to ship but also the cost to advertise by mail.

But rate increases reflect the price of maintaining an ever-expanding postal network and the infrastructure to sustain it. Each year, the Postal Service adds 1.7 million new addresses. This equates to 4,800 new letter carriers making deliveries to over 513 million new delivery stops each year, all while maintaining one of the lowest first-class letter rates in the world.

In addition to providing a critical service to individual postal patrons, the Postal Service is a powerful economic engine. The USPS is the eleventh largest enterprise in the Nation with $66 billion in annual revenue, more than Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca Cola combined. While the Postal Service itself employs more than 700,000 career employees, it is also the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing and paper production.

That is why the deteriorating state of the United States Postal Service's finances has been a source of great concern to many of us. After several years of large losses, the USPS has been slowly approaching its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion.

A few months ago, however, the Office of Personnel Management discovered that the USPS will dramatically over-fund its contributions to the Civil Service Retirement Fund unless the law is changed. After having based the Postal Service's annual contributions on the assumption that it had an actuarial deficit of $32 billion, OPM discovered instead that the USPS's CSRS deficit was actually only $5 billion. The difference is primarily due to higher than expected yields on pension investments by the Department of the Treasury. If the USPS continues to fund the CSRS at its current pace, it will over-fund its CSRS liability by $78 billion.

If Congress approves the changes to the payment schedule as my bill provides, the Postal Service's CSRS retirement expense would be reduced by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 and another $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. The USPS would be able to reduce its debt by more than $3 billion in fiscal year 2003, and anticipated rate increases would be delayed until at least 2006, ushering in an era of stable and predictable postal rates.

My initial response upon hearing this good news was one of pleasant surprise but mixed, I admit, with a healthy dose of skepticism. As the old saying goes, ``if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' However, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the U.S. Treasury Department, have confirmed OPM's analysis. Further, having spoken with experts outside the government as well, I have become satisfied that this situation represents a rare exception to the rule.

That is why Senator Carper and I today introduce the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Act of 2003. Our bill will correct the statutory funding mechanism for the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS. This legislation is necessary to prevent the overpayment of retirement contributions by the U.S. Postal Service. Most important, this bill directs OPM to determine a new amortization schedule that will pay off the Postal Service's existing unfunded CSRS liability of $5 billion.

In addition, the legislation requires that the savings resulting from this Act be used to reduce the postal debt in a manner that the Secretary of Treasury shall specify. It also expresses the sense of Congress that the Postal Service should use these savings to fulfill its commitment to hold postal rates unchanged until at least 2006, to begin to pay a portion of their massive unfunded health care liabilities, and that the savings not be used to pay bonuses to Postal Service executives.

The USPS needs other changes as well, something acknowledged by everyone inside and outside the Postal Service. I was pleased that President Bush appointed a Commission on the U.S. Postal Service that is modeled along the principles outlined in legislation I introduced last year. I am hopeful that when the Commission reports this summer, it will provide us with a blueprint to ensure that our postal system is ready to serve twenty-first century America as ably as it has served us in the past. I look forward to receiving the Commission's report and any recommendations for legislation it may include.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this week is the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy's Duchenne MD Awareness Week. It is also the 2-year anniversary of the introduction of the MD CARE Act, which I was pleased to cosponsor with our late colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, to raise awareness and expand Federal support for medical research to find a cure for this devastating disease.

The need for this legislation was first brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Brian Denger, of Biddeford, ME, who has not one, but two wonderful boys--Matthew and Patrick--with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. The Dengers--who also have a daughter, Rachel, with juvenile diabetes--are a loving and courageous family whose strength and spirit inspired me to become involved in advocating for more research funding for muscular dystrophy.

Until I met Brian, I really did not know much about Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. He was the first to tell me that 1 in 3,500 male children worldwide will be born with the disease and lose the ability to walk by age 10. He told me about the terrible progression of the disease. As it progresses, muscle deterioration in the back and chest begins to put pressure on the lungs, making it more and more difficult for the child to breathe.

What really caught my attention was the fact that the lifespan of children suffering from this disease has not been extended in any significant way in recent years. Current treatment options for boys like Matthew and Patrick are minimal and aimed simply at managing their symptoms in an effort to optimize their quality of life for the limited time they have with us.

Given our Nation's wealth of scientific expertise coupled with the tremendous infusion of resources we have poured into the NIH in recent years, we can and should do more for families like the Dengers. That is why I joined with Senator Wellstone in introducing the MD CARE Act, which President Bush signed into law in December of 2001.

Since the passage of this important legislation, the National Institutes of Health have established grants for the creation of three Centers of Excellence in Muscular Dystrophy Research, which will provide focused research and development in all phases--including basic, clinical, and transitional--of the research spectrum. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have developed an in-depth surveillance and epidemiology study of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. A population-based epidemiological study of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy will provide the extensive data necessary to inform research decisions, standards of care, physician training, and public health approaches to assist families living with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy.

The NIH and the CDC are to be commended for the progress they are making in their research efforts related to muscular dystrophy. These efforts to improve the quality and length of life for thousands of children diagnosed with muscular dystrophy are invaluable, and I commend the researchers and all of the families who have worked so hard to combat this devastating disease.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act, which repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision, WEP, and the government pension offset, GPO-- that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees. This legislation is of tremendous importance to Maine's teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees who currently are unfairly penalized for working in the private sector when the time comes for them to retire.

Despite their challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them and hold them to a different standard when it comes to their Social Security retirement benefits.

Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this unfair reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our communities to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families.

The government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions affect government employees and retirees in virtually every State, but their effect is most acute in Maine and 14 other States where most public employees are not covered by Social Security. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and school employees, and more than one- fifth of other public employees, are not covered by Social Security. Approximately 250,000 retired Federal, State and local government employees across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Thousands more stand to be affected in the future.

The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who also receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such as pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $561 in average monthly career earnings, government pensioners are only allowed to receive 40 percent--a harsh and unjust penalty of $280.50 per month.

The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. Estimates indicate that 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years.

This offset is, unfortunately, most harsh for those who can least afford the loss: lower-income women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for some 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

This simply is not fair and not right. Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement, and these two onerous provisions should be repealed.

This is an issue that I have heard about at the grocery store, at my church, and even at my 30th high school class reunion from my many friends who have entered the teaching profession and who are committed to living and working in Maine. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement.

I also hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under

Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years of teaching. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and GPO would double her current retirement income.

Wendy Lessard, an English teacher at Mt. Desert Island High School, is an example of another unfortunate consequence of the laws. After 10 years of teaching, she is now considering whether or not to continue her career because of the Social Security penalties associated with her teacher's pension. She tells me that she has worked vacations in her summers and off-hours to be able to make a better wage and pay back her student loans. She is just the kind of teacher we want teaching our students, but is now contemplating leaving the profession because of her concerns about financial security in retirement.

Moreover, these provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, ME, wrote:

I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in

response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the

current pool of educators near retirement in the next few

years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard

hours are not great selling points to young students when

selecting a career.

I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found

out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former

life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in

Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each

year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that

because of my many years of maximum Social Security

contributions, I would still have a livable retirement

``wage.'' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an

educator in your State.

Maine, like many States, is currently facing a serious shortage of teachers, and we simply cannot afford to discourage people from pursuing important careers in public service in this way. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of Rule XXVI, Sec. 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Governmental Affairs for the 108th Congress adopted by the Committee on February 5, 2003.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire County so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine.

The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the federal government and rural communities, ten years in most cases, so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax and regulatory relief over a ten-year period.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.

Unfair trade practices have also struck a blow to the County's economy. Aroostook shares more border miles with Canada than most northern states. It is bordered for approximately 280 miles to the west, north and east by Canada. Canadian farmers and businesses have been extremely competitive in Aroostook business markets; as a result, farmers have experienced a loss in sales which has caused a drop in the potato acreage planted, additional job loss, and still more people migrating from Aroostook County. Aroostook's economic situation has been further worsened by the strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar and the restrictive personal exemption duty limits that Canada imposes on its citizens when they make shopping trips to U.S. businesses on the border.

In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversity, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone is vital to its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefiting from this tremendous program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the County in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the County will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of EZ benefits.

America's greatest success can only be achieved when everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. It is only fair that all of Aroostook County's population be given the opportunity to fully benefit from the Empowerment Zone Program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in introducing legislation that will modify the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire County so that the benefits of Empowerment Zone designation can be fully realized in northern Maine.

The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone program represents a long-term partnership between the federal government and rural communities, ten years in most cases, so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax and regulatory relief over a ten-year period.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.

Unfair trade practices have also struck a blow to the County's economy. Aroostook shares more border miles with Canada than most northern states. It is bordered for approximately 280 miles to the west, north and east by Canada. Canadian farmers and businesses have been extremely competitive in Aroostook business markets; as a result, farmers have experienced a loss in sales which has caused a drop in the potato acreage planted, additional job loss, and still more people migrating from Aroostook County. Aroostook's economic situation has been further worsened by the strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar and the restrictive personal exemption duty limits that Canada imposes on its citizens when they make shopping trips to U.S. businesses on the border.

In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook have joined forces to stabilize, diversity, and grow the area's economy. They have attracted some new industries and jobs. As a native of Aroostook County, I can attest to the strong community support that will ensure a successful partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Designating this region of the United States as an Empowerment Zone is vital to its future economic prosperity. However, the restriction that the Empowerment Zone be limited to 1,000 square miles prevents all of Aroostook's small rural communities from benefiting from this tremendous program. Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles but has a population of only 74,000. Including all of the County in the Empowerment Zone will guarantee that parts of the County will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of EZ benefits.

America's greatest success can only be achieved when everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. It is only fair that all of Aroostook County's population be given the opportunity to fully benefit from the Empowerment Zone Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer had the misfortune last night to be presiding when I presented the qualifications of Secretary Gordon England to be the Deputy Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately for the Presiding Officer, the vote did not occur last night, so he is going to once again hear a little bit more about Secretary England. But since Gordon England is such an unusually well qualified candidate for this position, I will beg the indulgence of the Presiding Officer as I outline for my colleagues who were not here last evening his qualifications for this important post.

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Tom Ridge to be the first Secretary of Homeland Security. Today, I am confident that the Senate will unanimously confirm Gordon England to be Secretary Ridge's Deputy at his side at the helm of this critical new Department.

The Department of Homeland Security opened its doors last Friday. Together, Secretary Ridge and Deputy Secretary England make a formidable team to chart the new Department on a course to protecting our Nation from the threat of terrorist attacks.

As President Bush has said:

Our enemy is smart and resolute, [but] we are smarter and

more resolute.

Part of our resolve must be to place the best possible leaders in charge of the new Department of Homeland Security. Gordon England is such a leader. The Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I have the honor of chairing, thoroughly considered his nomination. We held a hearing last Friday. The nominee also responded to extensive prehearing questions. And yesterday the committee unanimously agreed to discharge the nomination to expedite floor consideration.

Gordon England is extraordinarily well qualified for this important post. He currently serves as Secretary of the Navy, a position he has held since May 2001. Moreover, he came to the Navy with an impressive portfolio of management experience. He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics and he was responsible for two major sectors of the corporation: Information systems, and international affairs.

Earlier in his career, he served in various executive capacities at a number of divisions of General Dynamics. But as preparation for becoming the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, it would be difficult to beat a tour as the Secretary of the Department of the Navy. As Secretary, Gordon England headed a department with a budget of over $100 billion and consisting of 462,000 sailors and 212,000 marines.

The Department of Homeland Security, which we often describe as a massive new Department, will bring together a civilian workforce of about 170,000 individuals. The Secretary of the Navy not only had many more military employees to supervise, but he had a civilian workforce of 190,000 employees.

Secretary England's extensive experience in managing large complex operations in both the private and public sectors will serve him well as the Deputy Secretary of the new Department.

Moreover, Secretary England brings a complete understanding of the Department of Defense which will prove invaluable in developing the appropriate communications links and levels of coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department of Defense recently established the U.S. Northern Command, or NORCOM, to oversee and further develop land, aerospace, and sea-based military defenses of our homeland. It has also established a new Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. So it will be critical for the Department of Homeland Security to have a good relationship with the Department of Defense and very good coordination between the two Departments as each performs its mission in defense of our homeland.

Secretary England's knowledge will help ensure that the two Departments work as a team and not at cross-purposes. In short, I believe Secretary England is uniquely qualified for this important job. We are extremely fortunate as a nation to have two such highly qualified individuals as Secretary Tom Ridge and Deputy Secretary Gordon England at the helm of this critical new Department.

I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important nomination.

Seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be assigned equally to each side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I know we have the vote ordered for 2:50 p.m.--that the Senator from Virginia have 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise tonight in strong support for the nomination of Secretary Gordon England to be the first Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. I thank the majority leader, in cooperation with the Democratic leader, for promptly scheduling the Senate's consideration of this very important nomination.

President Bush nominated Secretary England on January 7. The Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair, held a hearing on his nomination last Friday, and today, I am pleased to report, the committee unanimously voted to discharge the nominee from consideration. The committee thoroughly considered the nomination at a hearing on Friday. In addition, Secretary England responded to extensive prehearing questions about a wide variety of issues.

I have no doubt, based on my review of the record, and my conducting of the hearing, that Secretary England is extraordinarily well qualified for this position. In fact, it is difficult for me to think of two more qualified Americans than Tom Ridge and Gordon England to head up this vital new Department.

Secretary England currently serves as Secretary of the Navy. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have gotten to know him well in that capacity. I have enormous regard for his ability. He has held that position since May of 2001.

Prior to becoming our Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England had an impressive portfolio of management experience. He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation, and he previously served in various executive positions at a number of General Dynamics divisions. His experience in both the public and the private sectors will provide him with exactly the experience and expertise needed to oversee the merger of some 22 agencies and 170,000 Federal employees that will be transferred into this new Department.

As preparation for being Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, it would be difficult to beat a tour as Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy has a budget of over $100 billion. It consists of 372,000 active duty and 90,000 Reserve sailors, 172,000 active duty and 40,000 Reserve marines.

In addition, as Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England has overseen a civilian workforce of nearly 190,000 employees. That number, I note, exceeds the number in the workforce of the new Department. We often talk about what a management challenge it is going to be to the leaders of this new Department to oversee 170,000 civilian employees. As Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England has overseen a civilian workforce that exceeds that number, not to mention the sailors and marines under his jurisdiction.

Secretary England's extensive experience in managing large, complex operations in both the public and private sectors will serve him well in his new position. I have been very fortunate to have had the pleasure of working with him when he was Secretary of the Navy, and I look forward to continuing our partnership in his new capacity.

I urge my colleagues to support confirmation of this important nomination. The new Department of Homeland Security opened its doors officially last Friday, and it is critical that we get the top management positions filled as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I do hope this nominee will be approved unanimously.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Bond, I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for agreeing to include a 6 month extension of the add-on payment for rural home health services in the omnibus appropriations bill. Extension of this add-on payment, which currently is scheduled to sunset on April 1 will help 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.

Rural agencies also experience higher costs relative to productivity. Because of the longer travel times and distances between patients, rural caregivers are unable to perform 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 and her staff productivity much lower than the average due to the long distances her staff must cover to see patients.

Moreover, agencies in rural areas are frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means their relative costs are higher due to smaller scale operations. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits means 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.

If the rural add-on payment is eliminated on April 1, it will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already struggling and could force more of these agencies to close. Many 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 health care.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, met earlier this week and voted unanimously to extend for 1 year the add-on payments for rural home health services at 5 percent. Our provision is consistent with the MedPAC's recommendation and will extend the expiring provision through September 30. This will give the Finance Committee time to consider whether this add-on payment should be extended further.

Once again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance, and I look forward to working with them on this and other issues of importance to the health of rural Americans.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maryland has raised a very legitimate point about the use of arbitrary quotas or numerical targets to guide the contracting-out activities of Federal agencies. It seems to me that having one target for every agency may well be counterproductive and not result in the greatest efficiencies.

On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment of the Senator from Maryland may have some unintended consequences. It could be read as rejecting the notion of ever having competitive contracting, to see whether a specific function is best performed in-house or contracted out to the private sector.

I am also concerned that it could have an impact on other laws, although I know that is not the intent of the Senator from Maryland.

We have consulted with the General Accounting Office and have come up with some language to try to deal with this. I do want to assure the Senator from Maryland, as the new chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I want to work with her to try to resolve this issue because the issue she has brought to our attention is a legitimate one. So I hope to continue, in my new capacity, to work with her, to work with the Senator from Wyoming,

to work with the Senators from Virginia who have also expressed concerns about this issue.

I join the distinguished senior Senator from Maine in asking the distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member to give this unique situation consideration in conference. While many Americans have experienced the inconvenience of a temporary blackout or brownout, frequent power outages and high energy prices for the citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven have imposed significant financial burden and uncertainty on the community.

The placement of the cables on the sea floor, in combination with their old age, means that the lines are susceptible to damage from rough seas and fishing activity. Blackouts resulting from a severed or damaged cable not only incapacitate local businesses, but also disable the Water Districts, hampering their ability to maintain adequate water supplies to the towns' residents.

Due to the complex nature of working underwater, repairing the undersea cables is both expensive and time consuming. Fox Islands Electric Cooperative currently carries $2.7 million in debt owed to the Rural Utilities Service and estimates that replacement of the submarine cables will cost $7 million dollars. While the islands' electricity costs have always been above average due to its remoteness and small population, frequent disruptions and repairs have raised electric rates even further for the citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven. As the distinguished chairmen and distinguished ranking member continue their work on the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in conference, I would greatly appreciate consideration that may be given to Fox Islands Electric Cooperative.