Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, known as CARA, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. I want to begin by commending Senators Whitehouse and Portman for crafting this vitally important bill and also to thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy for their leadership in the Judiciary Committee. The heroin and opioid crisis in this country is devastating to far too many families, including those in my State of Maine. This epidemic can be seen in emergency rooms, local jails, on Main Streets, and in homes throughout our country. In 2014, there were a record 208 overdose deaths in the State of Maine, including 57 caused by heroin, and the problem is only getting worse. Last year, in the city of Portland, ME, 14 people overdosed in just 1 day. Two of them died as a result of those overdoses. This last weekend, the Bangor Daily News had a special segment of the paper that chronicled the vivid and tragic story of a young man, Garrett Brown, whose spiral into addiction ultimately resulted in his death from a heroin overdose. This epidemic is also having tragic effects on the most vulnerable in our society--the children and babies born to addicts. Last year in Maine nearly 1,000 babies were born drug-affected. That is about 8 percent of all births in our State. I have seen the videos of these babies in the neonatal intensive care unit. They are inconsolable. It is so tragic to watch them. Fortunately, the physicians and other health care providers in Maine have become very good at treating these babies, but I wonder what happens to them when they go back to their addicted mothers or fathers. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act takes the kind of multifaceted approach needed to address this epidemic. I have said we need a three-pronged approach. First, we need to focus on education and prevention. That is education of the public at large, particularly our school children, but it is also education of health care providers and of law enforcement as well. I remember vividly when I was a young student sitting through a presentation by a recovered heroin addict. I don't know if that is done anymore in our schools, but I can tell you it had a marked impact on all of us who listened to him. None of us ever would have wanted to be in the position in which he found himself as he struggled to recover from his addiction. I don't understand how heroin has lost its stigma, but it clearly has, and it is creating tragic results for our country. So education and prevention are critical. Second is law enforcement. We need to do a better job of helping law enforcement. I have had so many sheriffs tell me we cannot arrest our way out of this epidemic. We need to connect people who voluntarily come into our jails, and we need to connect them to treatment. Unfortunately, there aren't enough treatment facilities or guidance counselors or substance abuse experts or physicians and nurses and others with this expertise in many rural areas of our country, particularly in States like Maine, and I suspect in urban areas like Chicago where the service providers are overwhelmed with the number of people who need help. There has been a tripling of people in Maine who need help. Law enforcement has another critical role; that is, to work to interdict the heroin that is coming into the State of Maine--whether it originates in other States, or through ties to cities in Connecticut and Massachusetts, where inner-city gangs are bringing heroin into Maine and swapping it for guns. There is this trafficking that is going on where addicts with no records are being used as straw buyers, buying guns for the gang members who then exchange the heroin for these weapons. We need to have a greater effort to keep heroin out of our country when it is coming from those international cartels in Mexico as documented by the Portland Press Herald's excellent investigation into this matter. Of course, the third prong is treatment. We need more treatment facilities. We need the ability of not just paramedics but law enforcement to administer the drug Narcan, which can reverse the effects of overdoses if it is administered in time. The bill before us takes that kind of multifaceted approach. It includes strengthening treatment programs, supporting law enforcement, and increasing education and prevention efforts. It would encourage States and communities to expand these efforts and to increase evidence-based treatments for substance abuse disorders. It would authorize heroin and methamphetamine task forces to support safe law enforcement agencies, and it provides grants for communities facing drug crises. This crisis is by no means confined to the cities in our States. It is in the most rural areas imaginable in my State. It affects suburbia, and it affects neighborhoods throughout our country. Part of the solution to this crisis includes examining pain management and prescribing practices. I have heard from Maine families, from physicians, and from law enforcement about a disturbing pattern of a significant percentage of individuals using heroin after abusing legal opioid medications. According to a recent report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, prescription opioid abuse does indeed put individuals at a much higher risk of heroin use. In fact, nearly 80 percent of individuals using heroin reported that they began on their road to addiction by abusing prescription pain medications. CARA would create a task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication. It would also expand the disposal sites for unwanted prescriptions through drug take-back programs, which is an important way for individuals to safely and securely dispose of their unused prescription drugs. I have long been a supporter of drug take-back programs, which have prevented tons of unused, unneeded or expired drugs from falling into the hands of children or drug dealers. At Maine's most recent drug take-back day, authorities safely disposed of nearly 10 tons of unused drugs. Think about that. In a State of just 1.3 million people, in just one of these drug take-back days, 10 tons of unused drugs were collected and safely disposed of. The bill would also authorize grants for strengthening State prescription drug monitoring programs to help prevent doctor shopping. I have great sympathy for our county sheriffs who have talked to me about this problem. They tell me their jails are overwhelmed by those who are struggling with addiction. Jails are not designed to take the place of treatment centers. Yet sheriffs and police chiefs must train their officers to look for signs of withdrawal and to monitor mental health status. CARA would establish a demonstration program to help identify addicted individuals who may benefit more from treatment than incarceration. Funding would also be authorized to purchase and train first responders in the use of Narcan, a drug that as I mentioned can reverse the effects of an overdose if administered in time, and a portion of this funding is designated to support rural areas in our country. There have been many discussions in this Chamber, in our committees, and in our caucuses about the heroin crisis. Last December, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I serve held a hearing to examine prescribing practices, expanding access to addiction treatment, reducing overdoses, and partnering with law enforcement. Just last week, the Special Committee on Aging--which I have the privilege to chair--examined opiate use among seniors and other Medicare participants, the potential for diversion of powerful pain killers and Medicare reimbursement policies that may penalize physicians who, in their best medical judgment, decide not to prescribe powerful opiate pain killers and instead provide other kinds of pain relief for their patients. Yet because of the way the surveys are worded, under the Medicare patient satisfaction program, their hospitals can actually lose reimbursement if it is found that a patient was not satisfied enough with control of their pain. Clearly, pain does need to be managed, but these questions are so biased in the way they are asked that they invite overprescription and the prescription of powerful pain killers when they may not be needed. I am not talking about individuals with cancer or end-of-life conditions for whom opiate pain killers may be exactly what is needed to relieve their pain, but we know there are better alternatives for many people who do not need that kind of pain relief. I am working with Senator Lankford, Senator Donnelly, Senator Casey, and others to see if we can come up with an amendment to this bill on this issue. It is clear we need to take a comprehensive approach to this epidemic, and the bill before us is a vital step forward. It recognizes opioid and heroin abuse for the public health crisis that it has become, and it offers meaningful and effective ways to support communities seeking to expand treatment prevention, law enforcement, and recovery efforts. Again, I salute the sponsors of this legislation. I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and I urge all of our colleagues to come together to support this much needed bill. My thanks to my colleague from Illinois for deferring to me.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Digital Security Commission Act, a bill that will establish a national bipartisan commission to examine digital security and privacy and the ``going dark'' problem that poses a real challenge for those responsible for our national security and for protecting the American public. Let me commend the primary author of this bill, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his expertise in putting together not only a well-balanced commission but also a broad array of cosponsors in support of this important legislation. Senior administration officials--the FBI Director first among them-- have been vocal in articulating the problem of terrorists and criminals going dark, with the result that our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement are going blind. Director Comey has testified repeatedly to the fact that there are terrorists who are using encrypted communications to plot attacks against our people, and we know that international criminal cartels are doing so as well. There are many competing and difficult concerns that need to be worked out as we address this complex issue. Under our bill, a national and diverse commission will perform its review and then make recommendations that will protect the privacy rights of law-abiding individuals in an era in which terrorists and criminals increasingly use encrypted devices. The Digital Security Commission will have the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to this debate, and that is the opportunity our legislation creates. The laws of the United States, unfortunately, have not kept pace with technology, which has obviously rapidly evolved during the past three decades. As a result, the issues of going dark and preserving personal privacy are ones that we simply must grapple with today and for the future. To resolve what often are competing concerns will undoubtedly require a new law. Let me be clear that I personally don't believe that the absence of a new law in any way exempts a company or an individual from complying with a court order issued by a Federal judge. In the San Bernardino terrorism case, Apple has been ordered by a Federal judge to provide technical assistance to help the FBI access data on a cell phone that was used by one of the terrorists involved in killing 14 people and injuring 22 others. Here is an important fact that has been overlooked in many of the reports on this crime. Given that this phone was owned by the county, which has given its permission for the data to be retrieved--and I bet that is a critical point here--and that the court order is narrowly tailored, I believe Apple should reconsider its position as it relates to this particular case. In the long run, however, it is clear that we need a new law and a dialogue among the administration, Congress, Federal and State law enforcement, and the tech community in order to deal with this issue. It is appalling to me that there have been no legislative proposals submitted by the White House or any other Federal agency to guide us on this issue. At a time when the administration has been notably absent in the offering of a legislative proposal to address these important and complex issues, the practical solutions that I believe would come from the Digital Security Commission would be most welcome by the Congress and would help us and guide us as we draft a new law. To be sure, these are difficult issues to resolve. And I believe that if you surveyed the cosponsors of this bill, you would find all sorts of different views on the cases that are before us. Indeed, the courts have reached different opinions. While I do not expect that the Commissioners will see eye to eye on every recommendation, we can have confidence that the final report will reflect the consensus judgment of a supermajority of the Commissioners who are selected in equal numbers by Republicans and Democrats. The final report must be supported by at least three-quarters of the Commission to ensure that no recommendation represents the view of just a few stakeholders. When we had the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, one reason they were so powerful in enabling us to revamp the intelligence community was their unanimity. Again, let me thank Senator Warner for his leadership. I look forward to working with him and with my other colleagues, including the Senator from Maine, Angus King, to make sure that we get this issue right for the challenges we face now and in the decades to come. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to join the Senator from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell, in discussing some very important provisions that were included in the Customs conference report that the Senate acted on earlier this afternoon. As Senators representing border States, we are particularly attuned to the security and economic consequences of our border security policies. When it comes to travel, our country's goals should be to let our friends in and to keep our enemies out. As the Senator from Washington so eloquently described, the best way for us to do that is to push out our borders. Today, approximately 15 percent of travelers boarding an airplane destined for the United States do so only after fully clearing U.S. Customs and immigration inspections at 15 Department of Homeland Security preclearance facilities located in foreign airports. That is a start, but it doesn't go far enough. If we truly want to enhance our security, we need to advance the use of preclearance facilities in other foreign airports, and that is exactly what the Senator from Washington and I would do and what the Senate voted to do today. As Senator Cantwell has described, it is something that we have long worked on together as a team for many years, and I am very pleased with the progress we can point to today. Now, let me just briefly explain how preclearance works. Under the preclearance program, we station U.S. law enforcement officials overseas at foreign airports. There they can screen passengers at the point of departure to the United States rather than waiting for the passengers to arrive in the United States. Well, that makes all the sense in the world. It helps to prevent someone--a terrorist--from smuggling a bomb onto a plane. It helps make the no-fly list more effective. It helps Federal law enforcement to do a scan of other terrorist databases to see if a passenger is listed. In addition, the unique biometric information of each passenger is also collected before the flight departs to our country rather than after it has arrived. Again, it is this concept of pushing back our borders so that more screening is done overseas. We are doing this more with cargo, also, that is shipped on those cargo ships coming into our ports. It makes all the sense in the world. The security feature is particularly important because biometric information is so much more difficult to fake than biographic information such as the name or a date of birth, which can easily, regrettably, be falsified. As a result of the preclearance operations, threats to aviation security and to our country and its people can be identified at the earliest opportunity. Accelerating the expansion of preclearance operations incurs minimal costs and great benefits. Instead, new preclearance operations overseas are often paid for by the foreign airport authorities in exchange for the opportunity to offer passengers an improved travel experience returning home. Think of it, I say to my colleagues. When we come back from a long overseas flight and then we see that long line to go through Customs and immigration, wouldn't we rather do that on the front end of the flight when we are fresher and before that long flight home? This is advantageous for our foreign visitors, as well as increasing our security. The conference report passed by the Senate today thus represents an important step forward in strengthening our security. It will help to strengthen the security of travel to the United States. It does not represent our entire bill. The Cantwell-Collins bill also has enhanced information sharing between the United States and Europe regarding the identities of suspected terrorists. If our intelligence community can provide more information to European border authorities and they can use it in the screening of the more than 1 million migrants that are arriving in Europe, we simultaneously improve the security of Europe and of the United States. The continued threat posed to aviation from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, like ISIS, and so many others demands that we take immediate steps to improve our security, keeping our borders and our aviation industry safe but, most of all, keeping the American people safe. Today's vote on the Customs bill conference report is a significant step in the right direction. I want to acknowledge the work of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is headed by our colleague Senator Ron Johnson, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, headed by Secretary Jeh Johnson. Both of them have also worked hard on the preclearance issue. I hope that our colleagues will join Senator Cantwell and me as we continue the work we have been doing for the past 5 years on this issue. It is so important. As border State Senators, I think we are particularly sensitive to the fact that we want tourists, we want trade, we want people to come into this country, but we do not want lax border security to allow those who would do us harm to be able to enter this country. Let me end where I began. Our goal is to keep our enemies out and invite our friends in when it comes to travel. I want to commend Senator Cantwell for her longstanding leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with her. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague from New England, Senator Leahy, in introducing our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our bill would strengthen Federal law to make it easier for prosecutors to effectively go after gun traffickers while protecting fully the rights of the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding. The practice of straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result, and that is to put a gun in the hands of criminals. Today traffickers target individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms and then use those weapons to commit crimes. They exploit weaknesses in Federal law that make prosecuting straw purchasers difficult and punishment for such a crime generally minimal. The guns we are targeting in our bill are frequently sold and resold and trafficked across State lines, resulting in the proliferation of illegal firearms in our communities. This practice has fueled the violence across our southern border associated with the Mexican drug cartels; it has spurred gun violence in our cities; and it has contributed to the heroin crisis that is so devastating to our families and is undermining public safety in our communities. Current Federal law makes preventing and prosecuting these offenses very difficult for law enforcement. Right now, a straw purchaser can only be prosecuted for lying on a Federal form. Essentially, that is treated as if it were a paperwork violation. Our bill would create new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking in firearms. Instead of a slap on the wrist, these crimes would be punishable for up to 15 years in prison for those who knowingly purchase a firearm for a prohibited person or had reason to believe they would use the firearm in a prohibited way. For those straw purchasers who know or have reasonable cause to believe that the firearm would be used to commit a crime of violence, that crime will be punishable for up to 25 years in prison. It is not surprising that so many law enforcement groups have endorsed our commonsense proposal. It would provide them with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often goes hand in hand with drug trafficking. Straw purchasing and the trafficking of firearms puts guns directly into the hands of drug dealers and violent criminals who smuggle heroin into my State and so many other States. The heroin flooding our communities is reaching crisis proportions. In 2014, there were a record 208 overdose deaths in the State of Maine, including 57 caused by heroin, and the problem is only getting worse. The problem of straw purchasing and drug and gun trafficking is directly linked to the heroin crisis. Law enforcement officers tell me they have seen a major influx of drug dealers coming from out of State, straight up I-95's ``iron pipeline'' and other interstate highways with direct ties to gangs in major cities and ready to sell or trade prescription opiates and heroin for guns. Oftentimes drug dealers and gang members follow a similar pattern. They seek out and target addicts and they trade or sell them heroin for guns. These gang members with criminal records cross into Maine and approach these drug addicts to be their straw buyers because these addicts usually have clean records, so they can legally purchase the firearms these criminals are seeking. The addict exchanges the gun for heroin to support his or her drug dependency, and that cycle is repeated time and again. Those guns might be used in out-of-State crimes or resold at a profit. Recently, I received a truly shocking briefing from Federal law enforcement officials about the cases in Maine that fit this pattern. Let me tell you about one. Gang members trafficked in crack cocaine and heroin between New Haven, CT, and Bangor, ME, where I live. They were later charged with acts of violence, including assault, armed robberies, attempted murder, and murder. Law enforcement's investigation revealed that they had gotten the firearms by trading narcotics for them in Bangor, ME. They then distributed these guns to other gang members. The terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, is another tragic example of how straw purchasing can lead to horrific crimes. In this case it is believed that the individual straw-purchased two assault rifles that were later used in the terrorist attack that killed 14 people. He has been charged with making a false statement in relation to the purchase of those firearms. Our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act could have allowed law enforcement officials to charge this individual with straw purchasing and the trafficking of firearms rather than just a paperwork violation. Our bill also strengthens existing laws that prohibit gun smuggling. Right now it is illegal for someone to smuggle a firearm into the United States with the intent to engage in drug trafficking or violent crime. To combat the drug cartels operating across our southern border, we must also prohibit firearms from being trafficked out of the United States for these illegal purchases and purposes. In doing so, our bill would provide an important tool to combatting the trafficking organizations that are exporting firearms and ammunition from the United States and into Mexico, where they are used by drug cartels that are fueling the heroin crisis here at home. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, out of the nearly 105,000 firearms recovered in Mexico in the last 5 years, more than 73,000 were sourced to the United States. Similarly, a large percentage of guns used in crimes in our largest cities were trafficked across State lines. Let me emphasize that our bill protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It protects legitimate, private gun sales and is drafted to avoid sweeping in innocent transactions and placing unnecessary burdens on lawful, private sales. It expressly exempts certain transactions that are allowed under current law, such as gifts, raffles or auctions. There is absolutely nothing in our bill that would, for example, prohibit a father from giving a hunting rifle to his daughter as a gift. Furthermore, our bill expressly prohibits the act from being used to establish a Federal firearms registry, which I strongly oppose. This Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act takes guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. We have had many discussions in this Chamber, in our caucuses, and in our committees about the heroin crisis that is gripping far too many families and communities in States across the Nation, including the State of Maine. We need to take a comprehensive approach that includes strengthening law enforcement, providing treatment, and increasing education and prevention efforts. This bill is one piece of the law enforcement puzzle as we seek to combat this terrible epidemic that is ruining so many lives. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting our legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague from New England, Senator Leahy, in introducing our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our bill would strengthen Federal law to make it easier for prosecutors to effectively go after gun traffickers while protecting fully the rights of the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding. The practice of straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result, and that is to put a gun in the hands of criminals. Today traffickers target individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms and then use those weapons to commit crimes. They exploit weaknesses in Federal law that make prosecuting straw purchasers difficult and punishment for such a crime generally minimal. The guns we are targeting in our bill are frequently sold and resold and trafficked across State lines, resulting in the proliferation of illegal firearms in our communities. This practice has fueled the violence across our southern border associated with the Mexican drug cartels; it has spurred gun violence in our cities; and it has contributed to the heroin crisis that is so devastating to our families and is undermining public safety in our communities. Current Federal law makes preventing and prosecuting these offenses very difficult for law enforcement. Right now, a straw purchaser can only be prosecuted for lying on a Federal form. Essentially, that is treated as if it were a paperwork violation. Our bill would create new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking in firearms. Instead of a slap on the wrist, these crimes would be punishable for up to 15 years in prison for those who knowingly purchase a firearm for a prohibited person or had reason to believe they would use the firearm in a prohibited way. For those straw purchasers who know or have reasonable cause to believe that the firearm would be used to commit a crime of violence, that crime will be punishable for up to 25 years in prison. It is not surprising that so many law enforcement groups have endorsed our commonsense proposal. It would provide them with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often goes hand in hand with drug trafficking. Straw purchasing and the trafficking of firearms puts guns directly into the hands of drug dealers and violent criminals who smuggle heroin into my State and so many other States. The heroin flooding our communities is reaching crisis proportions. In 2014, there were a record 208 overdose deaths in the State of Maine, including 57 caused by heroin, and the problem is only getting worse. The problem of straw purchasing and drug and gun trafficking is directly linked to the heroin crisis. Law enforcement officers tell me they have seen a major influx of drug dealers coming from out of State, straight up I-95's ``iron pipeline'' and other interstate highways with direct ties to gangs in major cities and ready to sell or trade prescription opiates and heroin for guns. Oftentimes drug dealers and gang members follow a similar pattern. They seek out and target addicts and they trade or sell them heroin for guns. These gang members with criminal records cross into Maine and approach these drug addicts to be their straw buyers because these addicts usually have clean records, so they can legally purchase the firearms these criminals are seeking. The addict exchanges the gun for heroin to support his or her drug dependency, and that cycle is repeated time and again. Those guns might be used in out-of-State crimes or resold at a profit. Recently, I received a truly shocking briefing from Federal law enforcement officials about the cases in Maine that fit this pattern. Let me tell you about one. Gang members trafficked in crack cocaine and heroin between New Haven, CT, and Bangor, ME, where I live. They were later charged with acts of violence, including assault, armed robberies, attempted murder, and murder. Law enforcement's investigation revealed that they had gotten the firearms by trading narcotics for them in Bangor, ME. They then distributed these guns to other gang members. The terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, is another tragic example of how straw purchasing can lead to horrific crimes. In this case it is believed that the individual straw-purchased two assault rifles that were later used in the terrorist attack that killed 14 people. He has been charged with making a false statement in relation to the purchase of those firearms. Our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act could have allowed law enforcement officials to charge this individual with straw purchasing and the trafficking of firearms rather than just a paperwork violation. Our bill also strengthens existing laws that prohibit gun smuggling. Right now it is illegal for someone to smuggle a firearm into the United States with the intent to engage in drug trafficking or violent crime. To combat the drug cartels operating across our southern border, we must also prohibit firearms from being trafficked out of the United States for these illegal purchases and purposes. In doing so, our bill would provide an important tool to combatting the trafficking organizations that are exporting firearms and ammunition from the United States and into Mexico, where they are used by drug cartels that are fueling the heroin crisis here at home. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, out of the nearly 105,000 firearms recovered in Mexico in the last 5 years, more than 73,000 were sourced to the United States. Similarly, a large percentage of guns used in crimes in our largest cities were trafficked across State lines. Let me emphasize that our bill protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It protects legitimate, private gun sales and is drafted to avoid sweeping in innocent transactions and placing unnecessary burdens on lawful, private sales. It expressly exempts certain transactions that are allowed under current law, such as gifts, raffles or auctions. There is absolutely nothing in our bill that would, for example, prohibit a father from giving a hunting rifle to his daughter as a gift. Furthermore, our bill expressly prohibits the act from being used to establish a Federal firearms registry, which I strongly oppose. This Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act takes guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. We have had many discussions in this Chamber, in our caucuses, and in our committees about the heroin crisis that is gripping far too many families and communities in States across the Nation, including the State of Maine. We need to take a comprehensive approach that includes strengthening law enforcement, providing treatment, and increasing education and prevention efforts. This bill is one piece of the law enforcement puzzle as we seek to combat this terrible epidemic that is ruining so many lives. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting our legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I wish to speak in support of the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act. Last week, North Korea launched a space satellite into orbit in direct violation of U.N. sanctions. Last month, North Korea tested its fourth nuclear bomb since 2006. North Korea's steady march toward expanding its nuclear arsenal continues unabated. Even more troubling is North Korea's willingness to sell its nuclear and ballistic missile technology to the highest bidder, as demonstrated by its previous cooperation with Iran. The North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act is an appropriate and timely measure to expand U.S. sanctions against not only North Korea, but also those that facilitate North Korea's illicit and nefarious activities. In doing so, this legislation will deliver the message to the North Korean regime that its continued development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, material, and delivery systems will not be tolerated. At the same time, the United Nations Security Council must address this issue with the same sense of urgency, unity, and commitment that the House has shown and the Senate will demonstrate in passing this bill later today. First, U.N. member countries must fully understand and implement the many existing sanctions against North Korea already on the books. Unless they do, the sanctions will never work. The United States has minimal trade with North Korea, whereas China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, accounts for 70 percent of all of North Korea's economic trade. Yesterday, a new report released by a panel of U.N. experts found that North Korea continues to evade international sanctions because the sanctions have been seldom implemented, and some countries do not fully understand their obligations under the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. In other instances, there is simply a lack of political will to enforce the sanctions. This has to stop for sanctions to be effective against North Korea. Second, the U.N. Security Council must adopt new sanctions to demonstrate to the North Korean regime that further violations of U.N. sanctions will not be tolerated. Even though North Korea has continued to evade sanctions for the past decade, the response at the United Nations should be to identify the ways to make sanctions more effective and targeted rather than to walk away from sanctions entirely. We know sanctions can work because they have before. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department froze $24 million in North Korean accounts important to the regime at the Banco Delta Asia bank. As a result of this action, which was taken pursuant to authority Congress provided in the USA PATRIOT Act, the North Koreans returned to the six-party nuclear talks. They stayed at the talks until the frozen assets were released 2 years later. The bill we are considering today requires the Department of the Treasury to reevaluate whether North Korea should be considered a primary money-laundering concern, which would permit the President to enact the same type of sanctions that brought the North Koreans back to the negotiating table 10 years ago. I urge the Treasury Department to complete this review as quickly as possible so that the President has at his disposal the full array of options to persuade, coerce, and effectively contain the dangerous North Korean regime. I thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for bringing this measure to the floor, and I thank Senator Gardner and Senator Menendez as well for their extensive work on this legislation to address the nuclear threat posed by the erratic and unstable North Korean regime. I urge my colleagues to support this vital, bipartisan legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join some of my colleagues today to speak about the key role woody biomass can play in helping to meet our Nation's renewable energy needs. Last night an amendment that several of us offered was adopted by a voice vote. I thank the sponsors of that amendment who have joined with me--Senator Klobuchar, Senator King, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch--all of whom worked hard to craft this important amendment. There has been a great deal of misinformation, regrettably, circulated about the amendment, which I hope we will be able to clarify through a colloquy on the floor today. I know the lead Democratic sponsor of the amendment, Senator Klobuchar, would like to speak on it and has an engagement, so I am going to yield to her before giving my remarks. I thank her for her leadership.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on my amendment No. 3197, to increase the protection of our critical infrastructure in the electric sector from a debilitating cyber attack. I am pleased to have Senators Mikulski and Hirono join me as cosponsors. Critical infrastructure refers to entities that are vital to the safety, health, and economic well-being of the American people, such as the major utilities that run the Nation's electric grid, the national air transportation system that moves passengers and cargo safely from one location to another, and the elements of the financial sector that ensure the $14 trillion in payments made every day are securely routed through the banking system. The underlying bill includes several provisions that I support to improve the cyber posture of the U.S. electric grid. These include giving the Secretary of Energy new authority to take actions to protect the grid in the event of an emergency and establishing new programs to reduce vulnerabilities and improve collaboration among the Department of Energy, national labs, and private industry. The underlying bill, however, makes no distinction between the vast majority of local or regional utilities and the very few entities that are so key to the electric grid that they could debilitate the U.S. economy and our way of life if they were attacked. The Department of Homeland Security has identified the critical infrastructure entities at greatest risk of resulting in catastrophic harm if they were the targets of a successful cyber attack. While the entire list includes fewer than 65 entities across all sectors of the economy, it warrants our special attention because there is ample evidence, both classified and unclassified, that demonstrates the threat facing critical infrastructure, including our energy sector. Indeed, the committee report accompanying this bill notes that one- third of reported cyber attacks involve the energy sector. The amendment I have filed to this energy policy bill would only affect those entities on the list that are already subject to the oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC. Our amendment would require FERC to identify and propose actions that would reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the likelihood that a cyber attack on one of these entities would result in catastrophic harm. By ``catastrophic harm,'' the Department of Homeland Security means a single cyber attack that would likely result in 2,500 deaths, $50 billion in economic damage, or a severe degradation of our national security. In other words, if one of these entities upon which we depend each day were attacked, the results would be devastating. The Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, has testified that the greatest threat facing our country is in cyber space and that the number one cyber challenge concerning him is an attack on our Nation's critical infrastructure. His assessment is backed up by several intrusions into the industrial controls of critical infrastructure. Since 2009, the Wall Street Journal has published reports regarding efforts by foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, and Iran, to leave behind software on American critical infrastructure and to disrupt U.S. banks through cyber intrusions. Multiple natural gas pipeline companies were the target of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign beginning in December 2011, and Saudi Arabia's oil company, Aramco, was subject to a destructive cyber attack in 2012. In an incident that is still not fully understood, 700,000 Ukrainians lost power in December due to an attack that Ukrainian authorities and many journalists have ascribed to Russian hackers. In a hearing of the Intelligence Committee last summer, I asked Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, which is responsible for cyber space, how prepared our country was for a cyber attack against our critical infrastructure. He replied that we are at a ``5 or 6.'' Last month, the Deputy Director of the NSA, Richard Ledgett, was asked during a CNN interview if foreign actors already have the capability of shutting down key U.S. infrastructure, such as the financial sector, energy, transportation, and air traffic control. His response? ``Absolutely.'' When it comes to cyber security, ignorance is not bliss. The amendment we have filed would take the common sense approach of requiring the Federal agency responsible for the cyber security of the electric grid to collaborate with the entities that matter most and to propose actions that can reduce the risk of a catastrophic attack that could cause thousands of deaths, a devastating blow to our economy or national defense, or all of these terrible consequences. Congress has previously missed opportunities to improve our Nation's cyber preparedness before a ``cyber 9/11'' eventually occurs. We should not repeat that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this vital, bipartisan amendment.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership. I, too, want to thank the two floor managers of this bill, the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and her partner, Senator Cantwell, for working so closely with us. The fact is that biomass energy is a sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant energy source. Many States, including mine, are already relying on biomass to help meet their renewable energy goals. Renewable biomass produces the benefits of establishing jobs, boosting economic growth, and helping us to meet our Nation's energy needs. Our amendment supports this carbon-neutral energy source as an essential part of our Nation's energy future. The amendment, which was adopted last night, is very straightforward. It simply requires the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest bioenergy is consistent and not contradictory and that the full benefits of forest biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest management are recognized. It concerns me greatly that some have suggested that our amendment would somehow result in substantial damage to our forests and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forests in the United States are robust and sustainably managed, and climate science has consistently and clearly documented the carbon benefits of utilizing forest biomass for energy production. Moreover, healthy markets for biomass and forest products actually help conserve forest land and keep our working forests in this country. Our amendment also echos the principles outlined in a June 2015 bipartisan letter that was led by Senator Merkley and myself and was signed by 46 Senators from both sides of the aisle. Our letter stated: Our constituents employed in the biomass supply chain deserve federal policy that recognizes the clear benefits of forest bioenergy. We urge you to ensure that federal policies are consistent and reflect the carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy. In response to our letter, the administration noted that ``DOE, EPA, and USDA will work together to ensure that biomass energy plays a role in America's clean energy future.'' That is precisely the importance of our amendment, to make sure that happens. The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, institutions, and rules around the world. Carbon-neutral biomass energy derived from the residuals of forest products manufacturing has climate benefits. Scientists have confirmed that the ongoing use of manufacturing residuals for energy in the forest products industry has been yielding net climate benefits for many years. These residuals, such as bark and sawdust, replace the need for fossil fuels and provide significant greenhouse gas benefits, which some scientists have estimated to be the equivalent of removing approximately 35 million cars from the roads. As forests grow, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. This carbon dioxide is converted into organic carbon and stored in woody biomass. Trees release the stored carbon when they die, decay, or are combusted. As the biomass releases carbon as carbon dioxide, the carbon cycle is completed. The carbon in biomass will return to the atmosphere regardless of whether it is burned for energy, allowed to biodegrade, or lost in a forest fire. In November of 2014, 100 nationally recognized forest scientists, representing 80 universities, wrote to the EPA stating the long-term carbon benefits of forest bioenergy. This group weighed a comprehensive synthesis of the best peer-reviewed science and affirmed the carbon benefits of biomass. A literature review of forest carbon science that appeared in the November 2014 ``Journal of Forestry'' confirms that ``wood products and energy resources derived from forests have the potential to play an important and ongoing role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.'' So Federal policies for the use of clean, renewable energy solutions, including biomass, should be clear and simple and reflect these principles. We should not have Federal agencies with inconsistent policies when it comes to such an important issue. Again, I want to thank the sponsors and cosponsors of my bill, my amendment, as well as the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy Committee for their cooperation in getting the amendment adopted last night. I would like to yield to my colleague from Maine Senator King, who made this a tripartisan amendment when we offered it.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Maine. He has enormous expertise in the area of renewable energy, and I very much appreciate his adding his expertise to this debate. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated June 30, 2015, and signed by 46 Senators, on this very issue, that was addressed to the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I submitted last week, amendment No. 3140, which is a tripartisan amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which is the pending legislation. I submitted the amendment last week with Senators Klobuchar and King as my lead cosponsors. Our amendment would support the key role that the forests in this country can play in helping to meet our country's energy needs. The carbon benefits of forest biomass are clearly established. Yet current policy uncertainty could end up jeopardizing--rather than encouraging--investment in working forests, harvesting operations, bioenergy, wood products, and paper manufacturing. Biomass energy is sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant as an energy source. Many States are already relying on biomass to meet their renewable energy goals. There is a great deal of support for renewable biomass, which creates the benefits of establishing jobs, boosting economic growth, and helping us to meet our Nation's energy needs. Federal policies across all departments and agencies must remove any uncertainties and contradictions through a clear policy that forest bioenergy is an essential part of our Nation's energy future. With these goals in mind, I have offered a very straightforward amendment with a group of colleagues who span the ideological spectrum. They include, as I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King, as well as Senators Ayotte, Franken, Daines, Crapo, and Risch. I am very pleased to have all of these colleagues cosponsoring my bill. Our amendment supports the key role that forests in the United States can play in addressing the Nation's energy needs. The amendment echoes the principles outlined in the June 2015 letter that we sent, which was signed by 46 Senators. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, it is very unusual for 46 Senators on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of a policy. Specifically, our amendment would require the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the EPA to jointly ensure that Federal policy relating to forest bioenergy is consistent across all departments and agencies and that the full benefits of forest biomass for energy conservation and responsible forest management are recognized. The amendment would also direct these Federal agencies to establish clear and simple policy for the utilization of biomass as an energy solution. These include policies that reflect the carbon neutrality of forest bioenergy that recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, that encourage private investment throughout the biomass supply chain, that encourage forest management to improve forest health, and that recognize State initiatives to use biomass. The carbon neutrality of biomass harvested from sustainably managed forests has been recognized repeatedly by numerous studies, agencies, institutions, and rules around the world, and there has been no dispute about the carbon neutrality of biomass derived from the residuals of forest products manufacturing and agriculture. Our tripartisan amendment would help ensure that Federal policies for the use of clean, renewable energy solutions are clear and simple. I am in conversations with the two managers of this important bill, the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, about our amendment. I hope that it will be adopted, and I encourage our colleagues to support its adoption. As I mentioned, Senators Klobuchar and King joined with me last week in submitting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, Senator Daines, Senator Crapo, and Senator Risch be added as cosponsors to the amendment as well.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Town of Weld, ME. Known today as a gateway to the rugged and beautiful Western Maine Mountains, Weld was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today. Weld's incorporation on February 8, 1816, was but one milestone on a long journey of progress. For thousands of years, Maine's Western Mountains were the hunting grounds of the Abenaki Tribe. The reverence the Abenaki had for the natural beauty and resources of the region is upheld by the people of Weld today. The early settlers at what was called Webb's Pond Plantation were drawn by fertile soil, vast forests, and fast-moving waters, which they turned into productive farms and busy mills. The wealth produced by the land and by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community. Weld is a town of patriots. Its namesake, Benjamin Weld, was a hero of the American Revolution. Ninety-three townsmen answered freedom's call during the Civil War; more than 20 gave their lives preserving our great Nation. The veterans memorials at the town library stand in silent tribute to those who have defended America throughout our history. Weld also is a town of involved citizens. The active historical society, volunteer fire department, and library are evidence of a strong community spirit. The planning and volunteerism that have gone into this yearlong bicentennial celebration are evidence that Weld's spirit grows only stronger. This 200th anniversary is not just about something that is measured in calendar years; it is about human accomplishment and an occasion to celebrate the people who for more than two centuries have worked together and cared for one another. Thanks to those who came before, Weld has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, to inform our colleagues of an important development in the investigation underway by the Special Committee on Aging as we examine the sudden and dramatic price hikes for certain decades-old prescription drugs. First, let me provide the Presiding Officer and our colleagues with some background on our investigation to date. Given that 90 percent of seniors take at least one prescription drug every month, the egregious price increases we have witnessed on these older drugs that are no longer under patent protection could inflate the cost of health care by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Concerned not only about the high costs but also about the potential risk that patients will not be able to access the prescription drugs they need, we launched a bipartisan investigation early last November into the causes, effects, and potential solutions to these massive and unjustified price increases. Our investigation is focused on four companies that recently acquired six drugs that were decades old--drugs whose patents had expired long ago--and then these companies, after purchasing these drugs, dramatically hiked their prices. The four companies are Turing Pharmaceuticals, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin, Incorporated, and Rodelis Therapeutics. Of these four, Turing Pharmaceuticals, previously led by its founder Martin Shkreli, is the company that has received the most attention. In August of last year, Turing acquired the drug Daraprim. Daraprim is considered to be the gold standard for the treatment of toxoplasmosis, a disease resulting from a parasite infection that can be particularly harmful to infants born to infected mothers. Despite the fact that Daraprim has been on the market for 63 years, Turing bought the drug and then promptly raised its price from $17.63 to a whopping $750 per pill. The other three companies also dramatically increased the prices of the drugs they acquired from between 300 to 2,000 percent. On November 4, we wrote to the companies asking for detailed information regarding their pricing decisions. I ask unanimous consent that our letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Around the same time, Turing CEO Shkreli was actively engaged in online postings and other communications discussing Turing business, using what appeared to be his own personal electronic devices. On November 12, 2015, the Aging Committee asked the counsel for Turing to take reasonable steps to ensure that any business records on Mr. Shkreli's personal devices be properly preserved and produced. Turing still has not provided the Aging Committee with clear assurances that it will do so, notwithstanding the fact that they have told us that Mr. Shkreli was ``principally involved for Turing in all aspects of the transactions and the decisions covered by'' our November 4 letter. On December 9, 2015, we issued a subpoena for documents to Mr. Shkreli in his capacity as CEO, compelling Turing to produce the information that had been sought by our November 4 letter. On December 15, 2015, we learned that Mr. Shkreli had been indicted on seven counts unrelated to Turing and predating the company's corporate existence. The next day Turing announced Mr. Shkreli's resignation as CEO but left unclear whether or not he remained on its board of directors. The fact that the company has not made it clear that it would act to preserve Turing business records in its former CEO's possession left the committee deeply concerned that we might not receive all documents relevant to our investigation. Therefore, on December 21 of last year, the committee requested that Turing provide detailed information on the steps it was taking to preserve these records. Once again, however, Turing failed to produce an adequate response to our request. Consequently, the Special Committee on Aging issued another document subpoena--this one directly to Martin Shkreli himself--on December 24. It directed him to produce substantially the same documents sought by the committee's December 9 subpoena. By a letter dated January 12, 2016, counsel informed our committee that Mr. Shkreli was categorically invoking the act of production privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and was therefore refusing to produce any documents in response to the December 24 subpoena. So this is the important new development. He has chosen, in response to a document subpoena for Turing documents that may be in his personal possession, to invoke the Fifth Amendment. To be clear, Mr. Shkreli is essentially arguing that the very act of producing and authenticating documents that are seemingly unrelated to the charges filed against him may incriminate him. The committee has asked him through counsel for an explanation of the rationale for this argument, and we are awaiting a response. The committee is troubled by his unsupported invocation, given that the Turing documents we have requested appear to be unrelated to the charges brought against him. Absent a valid justification of the grounds for invoking the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Shkreli's assertion could hinder our important investigation. Our committee is seeking to understand how companies can acquire prescription drugs--drugs for which they had nothing to do with the research and development, drugs that in some cases are more than half a century old--and then suddenly impose dramatic price increases on those drugs at the expense of infants, vulnerable seniors, and others with devastating diseases for which in some cases these drugs are the gold standard for treatment. So far the Special Committee on Aging has received nearly 20,000 documents over the course of this investigation. The documents the Senator from Missouri and I are seeking on behalf of the committee likely include information that is essential in order for us to fully understand why this phenomenon is happening and to develop the legislative and regulatory solutions to end this disturbing practice.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield now to the ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, my colleague Senator McCaskill.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the cyber security bill included in the omnibus is a first step towards improving our Nation's dangerously inadequate defenses against cyber attacks. I know that the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee worked hard to ensure that a cyber security bill passed this year. Unfortunately, however, the American people and economy will remain vulnerable to a catastrophic cyber attack against our critical infrastructure even after this bill becomes law. Critical infrastructure refers to entities that are vital to the safety, health, and economic well-being of the American people, such as the major utilities that run the Nation's electric grid, the national air transportation system that moves passengers and cargo safely from one location to another, and the elements of the financial sector that ensure the $14 trillion in payments made every day are securely routed through the banking system. The Senate-passed cyber bill included an important provision I authored with the support of Senators Mikulski, Coats, Reed, Warner, Heinrich, King, Hirono, and Wyden that would have required the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the appropriate Federal agencies, to undertake an assessment of the fewer than 65 critical infrastructure entities at greatest risk of causing catastrophic harm if they were the targets of a successful cyber attack. By ``catastrophic harm,'' the Department of Homeland Security means a single cyber attack that would likely result in 2,500 deaths, $50 billion in economic damage, or a severe degradation of our national security. In other words, if one of these entities upon which we depend each day were attacked, the results would be devastating. Following the assessment, the provision then required a report to Congress describing the steps that could be taken to lessen the vulnerability of these entities and to decrease the risk of catastrophic harm resulting from such a cyber attack against our critical infrastructure. Inexplicably, this provision, which was supported by a majority of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was eliminated in the negotiations between the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I am told that this important provision was dropped because of opposition from certain industry groups that claimed that the current investment and regulatory structure is sufficient to protect our critical infrastructure; yet our provision explicitly included existing regulators in the assessment process and required no new mandates. Compromise language that would have made this even clearer was also rejected. Our provision appropriately distinguished between the vast majority of businesses, such as a retail store or a chain of small ice cream shops, and the fewer than 65 critical infrastructure entities that could debilitate the U.S. economy or our way of life if attacked; yet the final version of the cyber bill treats these very different entities in exactly the same way. I ask unanimous consent that a November 30, 2015, letter sent from a majority of the Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee to the chairmen and vice chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that corrects the Record on what this provision does and why it is necessary be printed in the Record following my remarks. These fewer than 65 entities warrant our special attention because there is ample evidence, both classified and unclassified, that demonstrates the threat facing critical infrastructure and the deficiencies in the cyber security capability to defend them. The Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, has testified that the greatest threat facing our country is in cyber space. He has stated before the Armed Services Committee that the number one cyber challenge that concerns him the most is an attack on our Nation's critical infrastructure. His assessment is backed up by several intrusions into the industrial controls of critical infrastructure. Since 2009, the Wall Street Journal has published reports regarding efforts by foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, and Iran, to leave behind software on American critical infrastructure and to disrupt U.S. banks through cyber intrusions. Multiple natural gas pipeline companies were the target of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign beginning in December 2011, and Saudi Arabia's oil company, Aramco, was subject to a destructive cyber attack in 2012. When I asked Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency with responsibility for cyber space, how prepared our country was for a cyber attack against our critical infrastructure in a hearing this summer, he replied that we are at a ``5 or 6.'' Last month, the Deputy Director of the NSA, Richard Ledgett, was asked during a CNN interview if foreign actors already have the capability of shutting down key U.S. infrastructure, such as the financial sector, energy, transportation, and air traffic control. His response? ``Absolutely.'' When it comes to cyber security, ignorance is not bliss. The least we should do is to ask DHS and the appropriate Federal agencies to describe what more could be done to prevent a catastrophic cyber attack on critical infrastructure that could cause thousands of deaths and/or a devastating blow to our economy or national defense. Congress has missed an opportunity to improve our Nation's cyber preparedness by refusing to even ask DHS or the appropriate Federal agencies to understand and identify what more could be done to prevent a catastrophic cyber attack on the fewer than 65 critical infrastructure entities. A cyber attack on our critical infrastructure is not a matter of ``if,'' but a matter of ``when.'' We are at September 10 levels in terms of cyber preparedness--a sentiment expressed by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012 and in the 9/11 Commission's 10th anniversary report released last year. We cannot afford to wait for a ``cyber 9/11'' before protecting our critical infrastructure. By rejecting this provision, this Congress has elected to take just such a risk.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus appropriations bill. I want to highlight the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development division of the bill, which is critically important to meeting the housing needs of low- income, disabled, and older Americans, to shelter the homeless, and to boost our economy and create jobs through much needed infrastructure investments in our roads, bridges, railroads, transit systems, and airports. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Cochran and Vice Chairwoman Mikulski for their leadership in advancing these appropriations bills. I also want to acknowledge Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the subcommittee, who worked closely with me in our negotiations with the House. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the tireless efforts staff have put into this bill throughout the entire process. My staff: Heideh Shahmoradi, Ken Altman, Jason Woolwine, Rajat Mathur, Lydia Collins, and Gus Maples have made enormous contributions. I also want to thank Dabney Hegg, Rachel Milberg, Christina Monroe, and Jordan Stone on Senator Reed's staff. This bill represents priorities from Members on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers. Through considerable negotiation and compromise, we have crafted a bipartisan bill that targets limited resources to meet our most essential transportation and housing needs while ensuring effective oversight of these important programs. The bill makes important investments, supporting millions of jobs and economic development. It invests in our Nation's transportation infrastructure by continuing to provide $500 million for the TIGER Program. This highly competitive program creates jobs and supports economic growth in every one of our home States. The bill provides increased funding for our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs, consistent with the recently enacted highway authorization bill, the FAST Act. State DOTs are also provided with the flexibility to repurpose approximately $2 billion in old, unused congressionally directed spending and direct it toward infrastructure projects that are of higher priority today within the same geographic location of the original designation. Turning to air travel, the aviation investments will continue to modernize our nation's air traffic system and help to keep rural communities connected to the transportation network. It will ease future congestion and help reduce delays for travelers in U.S. airspace. The bill provides funding for FAA programs at 99.97 percent of the budget request to ensure FAA's operations and safety workforce are fully funded, which includes 14,500 air traffic controllers and more than 25,000 engineers, maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, and operational support personnel. In addition to aviation safety, the bill provides $50 million in rail safety grants in response to the devastating rail accidents in recent years. These grants will support infrastructure improvements and safety technology, including positive train control. There are also several provisions to enhance truck safety on our Nation's highways. For example, the bill requires the Department of Transportation to publish a proposed rule on speed governors, which limits the speed at which these trucks can operate. The Department continues to delay this rulemaking, which was initially petitioned by the industry itself. It is time to get this important safety rule completed and implemented. The bill also protects critical housing programs by preserving existing rental assistance for vulnerable families and individuals, including our seniors, and strengthens the Federal response to the problem of youth homelessness. Sufficient funding is provided to keep pace with the rising cost of housing vulnerable families, ensuring that more than 4.7 million individuals and families currently receiving assistance will not have to worry about losing their housing. Without this assistance, many of these families might otherwise become homeless. Youth homelessness is especially troubling and warrants more attention. Reflecting this concern, our bill provides $42.5 million to expand efforts to reduce youth homelessness. These efforts build on our success in reducing veterans homelessness, which has been reduced by 36 percent since 2010. This bill continues that effort by providing an additional 8,000 vouchers for our homeless veterans despite the administration's failure to request funding for this critically important program. To support local development, we provide $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grants Program. This is an extremely popular program with the States and communities because it allows them to tailor the Federal funds to support local economic and job creation projects. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the omnibus. Section 702 in Division O

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, in a colloquy regarding an aviation noise concern of particular interest to his constituents in the Phoenix area. During the floor debates on the transportation and housing appropriations bills in both the House and the Senate, there were a number of amendments adopted related to the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic procedures and, in particular, the noise that FAA-approved flight patterns create in communities. The Senator from Arizona offered an amendment dealing with this issue, which I was happy to accept during the abbreviated consideration of the THUD bill on the Senate floor. As a result, the omnibus includes bill language requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to update its ``community involvement manual'' related to new air traffic procedures in order to improve public outreach and community involvement. The FAA is directed to complete and implement a plan which enhances community involvement and proactively addresses concerns associated with performance-based navigation projects. I know this is an important issue for you, Senator McCain, and I appreciate you joining me on the floor today so that we can send a clear message to the FAA about the importance of involving your constituents.

Ms. COLLINS. To be clear, the FAA should be ensuring that local communities have a voice when decisions that affect them directly are being made by the agency.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, which will provide needed tax certainty and predictability for our Nation's small businesses, enabling them to create more jobs and boost our economy. Several months ago, on April 30, I was joined by my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, in introducing the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2015. Our bill aimed to help small businesses invest, grow, and create jobs by providing needed tax relief and certainty. Senator Casey has been a true partner in advancing this bill, and we are so pleased that the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act takes three key provisions from our bipartisan bill. These provisions include, first, the permanent extension of section 179 expensing, indexed for inflation, which will allow small businesses to write off up to $500,000 of the cost of certain equipment. I would note that this provision is so important to our smaller businesses that it is the No. 1 tax priority of our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, the National Federation of Independent Business. Second, the bill includes the permanent extension of the 15-year deduction period for restaurants and retailers to improve their space and to buy new equipment. This is so important because otherwise the Tax Code reverts to a 39-year depreciation schedule. That is totally unrealistic. No restaurant could wait 39 years before investing in new flooring, new equipment, and other kinds of renovations and expect that customers will still come flocking to their doors. The third provision of our bill would be an extension of so-called bonus depreciation to allow companies to deduct the cost of certain equipment and software. These three provisions will give our small businesses the predictability they require to plan for capital investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. I know I don't have to tell the Presiding Officer that small businesses create the majority of new jobs in this country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, small businesses generated 63 percent of net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2013. Even the smallest firms had a notable effect on our economy. The Small Business Administration data indicate that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18 percent of all private sector jobs in 2013. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business indicate that taxes are the No. 1 concern of small business owners and that the constant change in our Tax Code is among their chief concerns. I know this to be true from the many conversations I have had with small business men and women throughout the State of Maine. It is so frustrating to them because they don't know what the Tax Code is going to provide from year to year, making it nearly impossible to plan. This has the effect of freezing their investment decisions, and that in turn affects their ability to hire more workers. The long-term solutions provided in this bill will provide the certainty small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans that are vital to growth and job creation. For example, section 179 of the Tax Code allows small businesses to deduct the cost of acquired assets more rapidly. The amount of the maximum allowable deduction, however, has changed three times in the past 8 years and has often been addressed as a year-end ``extender,'' making this tax benefit unpredictable from year to year and therefore difficult for small businesses to take full advantage of in their long- range planning. Let me give a concrete example. Earlier this year I spoke to Patrick Schrader from Arundel Machine, a precision machining business in Southern Maine. He told me that the uncertainty surrounding section 179 has hindered his ability to make business decisions. The high-tech equipment he needs requires months of lead time. For a small business like Patrick's, it is very risky to increase spending to expand and create new jobs when the deductibility of those investments remains unknown until the very end of the year. For business planning, this is information that is vital to have at the beginning of the year, not at the end. This uncertainty has a direct impact on hiring decisions. I wish to give another example of what the small business expensing provisions can mean. Maine has become well known for its high-quality craft beers. Dan Kleban founded the Maine Beer Company with his brother in 2009. In 6 short years his business has added more than 20 good- paying jobs with generous health and retirement benefits, and they want to add even more. Dan noted that his company's business decisions have been directly affected by the availability of section 179 expensing. This provision fueled their expansion by allowing them to reinvest their capital into new equipment to produce more great beer and hire more great Maine workers. In the last 3 years, they have taken the maximum deduction allowed under section 179 to acquire the equipment needed to expand their business. This year they hope to use the provision to finance the cost of a solar project that will offset nearly 50 percent of their energy consumption. If the business had been forced to spread these deductions over many years, its owners simply would not have been able to create the new jobs as they have. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of the investment by Maine Beer Company and Maine's many other small brewers and other kinds of small businesses on equipment manufacturers, on the transportation companies needed to haul that new equipment, and, in the case of craft beers, on the suppliers, the supply chain, including farmers who are providing the materials needed to brew these outstanding beers. In February, NFIB released new research that backs up this claim with hard numbers. NFIB found that simply extending section 179 permanently at the 2014 level could increase employment by as many as 197,000 jobs during the 10-year window following implementation. U.S. real output could also increase by as much as $18.6 billion over the same period. I mention those numbers because it shows how beneficial this provision of our Tax Code can be when it is made permanent, when the uncertainty about whether it is going to be available and at what level goes away. In light of the positive effects these provisions would have on small businesses, on jobs, and on our economy, I urge my colleagues to support the tax relief package. I am pleased to yield to my cosponsor and colleague Senator Casey.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the contributions of Priscilla Hobson Hanley, who is retiring after more than 30 years of distinguished public service as staff in the U.S. Congress. Since the very beginning of my service in the Senate nearly 19 years ago, Priscilla has been one of my most valued advisers. She has always provided me with expertise on health care issues and Social Security, and most recently, she has served as staff director for the Senate Aging Committee. She exemplifies the ideal public servant; integrity, thoroughness, a spirit of inquiry, and hard work characterize her service. Above all, Priscilla has always demonstrated her belief that it is an honor to serve the people of Maine and our Nation. I first met Priscilla in 1984 when we both worked for Maine Senator Bill Cohen. After brief stints working in the House for two Congressmen from her native California, Priscilla was hired by Senator Cohen that year and developed an in-depth knowledge of health care issues. She became deputy staff director of the Aging Committee when Senator Cohen served as chairman. When I assumed Senator Cohen's seat in 1997, Priscilla was one of the very first people I hired; thus I had a terrific expert in two subject areas of great concern to my Maine constituents: health care and senior issues. As health policy adviser and legislative assistant, Priscilla brought her intelligence and experience to bear on the complex and myriad issues of health care, biomedical research, access to care in rural areas, women's health, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Through her leadership role on the Aging Committee staff, she advanced our priorities of improving retirement security, increasing funding for research on diseases like Alzheimer's and diabetes, and protecting against scams targeting seniors. Three examples illustrate Priscilla's commitment to service. In 1997, my very first year in the Senate, we were considering a massive tax bill. At the last minute, a one-sentence provision appeared out of nowhere that was, beneath the innocuous wording, a $50-billion tax giveaway to Big Tobacco. Priscilla spotted that one sentence in the 327-page bill, and we were able to put an end to the subsidy. Priscilla also helped me start the Diabetes Caucus in the Senate in 1998. As a result of her dedication, funding for diabetes research has tripled since that year. In 2003, our Nation was still reeling from the attacks of 9/11, and Congress was working on a tax-cut bill to invigorate the struggling economy. A key to the success of that bill and to the economic rebound that followed was the temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, to help States provide health care to low-income families. Priscilla led the way in developing that key provision. From dramatic increases in funding for diabetes and Alzheimer's research to improvements in rural health care and advancements in mental health parity, Priscilla has played a leadership role. Her work, due to her unassuming nature, may often be unheralded, but her legacy is inspiring to all of us who serve. When not working for the American people, Priscilla's great passion is a love of musical theater. In fact, a rare interruption in her more than three decades of service on the Hill came when she took a brief respite from Congress to help run an opera company in Virginia. Priscilla has a particular fondness for the comic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan, and like Major General Stanley of The Pirates of Penzance, she has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things ``vegetable, animal, and mineral.'' She truly is the very model of a modern Senate staffer, a model all should emulate. A life so devoted to public service brings to mind the parable of the talents. The master, leaving on a journey, entrusts a servant with a portion of his treasure. Upon his return, the master is delighted to find that his wealth was been wisely invested and multiplied. Priscilla Hobson Hanley was entrusted the great treasure of intelligence, energy, and passion. She invested that treasure wisely and through hard work and determination multiplied its benefits to all. To her, I quote Scripture and say, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''