Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The number of reported suicide deaths in the U.S. military surged to a record 349 in 2012, which is more than the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat while serving our nation in Afghanistan during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than 21 states. These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid future suicides. There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report, Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids. This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take- back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program. In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat seriously, we must do more. At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled substances through appropriate mechanisms. DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and highest of standards. Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address the scourge of suicide. The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important, life-saving legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Prescription Drug Safety Act of 2013, with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Boxer, Manchin, Murkowski, and Boozman. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish drug take-back programs in coordination with both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The number of reported suicide deaths in the U.S. military surged to a record 349 in 2012, which is more than the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat while serving our nation in Afghanistan during the same period of time. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of suicides among veterans has reached an astounding rate of 22 each day based on data collected from more than 21 states. These losses are unacceptable. We are losing dozens of America's finest each month, squandering precious talent that our nation needs and depriving families of their loved ones. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans; their mental health needs must be met now to avoid future suicides. There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides. In its January 2012 report, Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 percent of suicides involved individuals with a known history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids. This report recommended the establishment of a military drug take- back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year, and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it is past time we act on this recommendation and implement a military drug take-back program. In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have not focused sufficient resources or creativity to suicide prevention. While I applaud the military's, and especially the Army's, and VA's efforts to address this threat seriously, we must do more. At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, has the inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. Three years ago, the Congress passed the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies for the collection and disposal of controlled substances. Since that time, the Attorney General has not sufficiently exercised his existing authority to provide this much needed assistance to the Department of Defense and the VA. The DEA recently proposed new regulations to expand the options available to collect controlled substances for purposes of disposal. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fall short because they fail to authorize the Department of Defense or the VA to collect controlled substances through appropriate mechanisms. DEA has concerns that DOD and VA cannot maintain the same strict accountability of drugs to prevent the misuse, abuse, or sales in the black market. I am confident, however, that the DOD--the institution that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of conducting drug take-back programs with the utmost accountability and highest of standards. Excluding the DOD and VA from conducting drug take-back programs is detrimental to efforts to reduce controlled substance abuse, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers and veterans, or their family members. This legislation will provide the necessary authority to give both departments an effective drug-take back program that will help address the scourge of suicide. The loss of even one servicemember or veteran to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important, life-saving legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the town of Berwick, ME. As the ninth incorporated town in Maine, Berwick holds a very special place in our State's history, and one that exemplifies the determination and resiliency of Maine people. While this landmark anniversary marks Berwick's incorporation, the year 1713 was but one milestone in a long journey of progress. It is a journey that began thousands of years earlier with Native American villages on the banks of the Piscataqua and Salmon Falls Rivers. In 1631, barely a decade after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, Ambrose Gibbens established a settlement at Quampeagan Falls and built the first sawmill in North America. That manufacturing heritage has remained strong in the three communities known today as The Berwicks, from the textile and iron works of the 18th century to the cutting-edge biotechnology and aerospace industries of today. Industry is only part of Berwick's story. During the Revolutionary War, the town provided two full companies to fight for America's independence, more than many towns of greater size. The courage and character demonstrated by the townspeople in standing for liberty echo throughout Berwick's history. In the years before the Civil War, the many churches in town were powerful voices for the abolition of slavery. During that terrible conflict, more than 200 of Berwick's young men fought, and many died, so that all might live in freedom. The town's honor roll of current military personnel demonstrates an ongoing commitment to our Nation's founding principles. This anniversary is not just about something that is measured in calendar years. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, for more than three centuries, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community that is a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. Thanks to those who came before, Berwick has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are here today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation, the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013, which I introduced today along with my friend and colleague, Senator Casey. Small businesses are our Nation's job creators. Firms with fewer than 500 employees generate about 50 percent of our Nation's GDP, account for more than 99 percent of employers and employ nearly half of all workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 65 percent of the new jobs created from 1993 to 2009. Even the smallest firms have a huge effect on our economy. Small Business Administration data indicate that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18 percent of all private sector jobs in 2010. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 allows small businesses to plan for capital investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. Our bill eases complex accounting rules for the smallest businesses, and it reduces the tax burden on newly formed ventures. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, indicate that taxes are the number one concern of small business owners, and that constant change in the tax code is among their chief concerns. A key feature of this bill is that it provides the certainty small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans, which are vital to growth. For example, section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code allows small businesses to deduct the cost of acquired assets more rapidly. The amount of the maximum allowable deduction has changed three times in the past 6 years, and is usually 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. Our bill permanently sets the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 at $250,000, indexed for inflation, and ensures that only small businesses can take advantage of the benefit because it phases out as acquisitions exceed $800,000. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 also allows more companies to use the intuitive cash method of accounting by permanently doubling the threshold at which the more complex accrual method is required, from $5 million in gross receipts to $10 million. This includes an expansion in the ability of small businesses to use simplified methods of accounting for inventories. The bill also eases the tax burden on new businesses by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. Like section 179, this benefit is limited to small businesses, and the deduction phases out for expenses exceeding $60,000. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 extends for one year provisions which provide benefits to businesses large and small--so-called ``bonus depreciation'' and 15- year depreciation for improvements with respect to restaurants, retail facilities, and leaseholds. Although permanence is important, I believe that tax provisions that affect businesses of all sizes should be debated and addressed in the context of comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform, which I urge the Senate to undertake. The provisions in the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 would make a real difference in our Nation's small businesses' ability to survive and thrive. I recently spoke with Rob Tod, the founder of Allagash Brewing Company, which is based in Portland, ME. Allagash makes some of the best craft beer in the country. It started as a one-man operation in 1995. In the 18 years since, it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and distributes craft beer throughout the United States. Rob noted that his company's expansion was fueled in part by bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing. New to the craft beer business, Rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable terms. But these cost recovery provisions allowed Rob to pay less in taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his business. Those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus creating jobs. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of Allagash's investment on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, the increased inventory in his brewery, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew additional beer. In light of the positive effects this bill would have on small businesses and our economy, I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013. This bill has been endorsed by the NFIB, an important voice for small business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation, the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013, which I introduced today along with my friend and colleague, Senator Casey. Small businesses are our Nation's job creators. Firms with fewer than 500 employees generate about 50 percent of our Nation's GDP, account for more than 99 percent of employers and employ nearly half of all workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 65 percent of the new jobs created from 1993 to 2009. Even the smallest firms have a huge effect on our economy. Small Business Administration data indicate that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18 percent of all private sector jobs in 2010. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 allows small businesses to plan for capital investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. Our bill eases complex accounting rules for the smallest businesses, and it reduces the tax burden on newly formed ventures. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, indicate that taxes are the number one concern of small business owners, and that constant change in the tax code is among their chief concerns. A key feature of this bill is that it provides the certainty small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans, which are vital to growth. For example, section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code allows small businesses to deduct the cost of acquired assets more rapidly. The amount of the maximum allowable deduction has changed three times in the past 6 years, and is usually 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. Our bill permanently sets the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 at $250,000, indexed for inflation, and ensures that only small businesses can take advantage of the benefit because it phases out as acquisitions exceed $800,000. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 also allows more companies to use the intuitive cash method of accounting by permanently doubling the threshold at which the more complex accrual method is required, from $5 million in gross receipts to $10 million. This includes an expansion in the ability of small businesses to use simplified methods of accounting for inventories. The bill also eases the tax burden on new businesses by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. Like section 179, this benefit is limited to small businesses, and the deduction phases out for expenses exceeding $60,000. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 extends for one year provisions which provide benefits to businesses large and small--so-called ``bonus depreciation'' and 15- year depreciation for improvements with respect to restaurants, retail facilities, and leaseholds. Although permanence is important, I believe that tax provisions that affect businesses of all sizes should be debated and addressed in the context of comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform, which I urge the Senate to undertake. The provisions in the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013 would make a real difference in our Nation's small businesses' ability to survive and thrive. I recently spoke with Rob Tod, the founder of Allagash Brewing Company, which is based in Portland, ME. Allagash makes some of the best craft beer in the country. It started as a one-man operation in 1995. In the 18 years since, it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and distributes craft beer throughout the United States. Rob noted that his company's expansion was fueled in part by bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing. New to the craft beer business, Rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable terms. But these cost recovery provisions allowed Rob to pay less in taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his business. Those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus creating jobs. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of Allagash's investment on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, the increased inventory in his brewery, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew additional beer. In light of the positive effects this bill would have on small businesses and our economy, I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2013. This bill has been endorsed by the NFIB, an important voice for small business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Senator King that would ensure the Department of Defense provides military recruits with athletic footwear made in the U.S.A. The Berry Amendment, established by Congress in 1941, requires the Department to give preference to clothing and other items made in the United States for any contract valued at $150,000 or more. For decades, the military issued American-made uniforms, including athletic footwear, for our troops. However since fiscal year 2002, the purpose and intent of the Berry Amendment have been undermined by a change in DOD policy. The Army, Air Force, and the Navy now provide a cash voucher that incoming servicemembers use to purchase athletic footwear, without providing any preference for domestically manufactured footwear. DOD claims that a soldier's individual purchase of athletic footwear with a DOD-provided cash allowance is not subject to the Berry Amendment because such individual purchases fall below the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000. Yet, the cash allowances provided with Federal funds for athletic shoes are valued at about $15 million annually, an amount that is 100 times the minimum contract value at which the Berry Amendment applies. Like all other clothing items issued directly by the military services, athletic footwear should be made in the U.S.A. by American companies. It is time for DoD to treat athletic footware like every other uniform item, including boots, and buy them from American manufacturers. This bill would require DOD to comply with the Berry Amendment for footwear either issued directly to or through a cash allowance to servicemembers upon initial entry into the Armed Forces. In other words, athletic footwear would be treated like boots and all other uniform items. In the past, opponents of ensuring compliance with the Berry amendment have argued there is an insufficient domestic market for athletic shoes, that Berry compliant shoes somehow would not provide adequate comfort or safety, and that athletic shoes are not uniform items. None of these objections withstands scrutiny. After the Senate Armed Services Committee required DOD to conduct a market survey to determine vendor interest, DOD found that vendor interest and capacity do exist to support a Berry compliant shoe market. The report also found that at least two American companies can produce high-quality Berry compliant footwear right now in the quantity and at the price point needed. Today, a 100 percent Berry compliant shoe is on the market at a price of $68, $6 less than the current Army allowance of $74, and without requiring waivers. The comfort argument is also based on the unfounded premise that recruits somehow would not enjoy the same degree of comfort or safety with a Berry compliant shoe. Yet the military makes no distinction for boots or other uniform shoes, to no adverse effect upon recruits. To address this concern, however, the amendment would exempt servicemembers requiring a waiver for medical reasons. Finally, I dispute the characterization that athletic shoes are not uniform items. Federal funds are used to purchase the shoes, and recruits are required to wear them. If this is not a uniform item, why are we allocating Federal funding at all? I would also suggest that any initial entry trainee who arrives at a physical training formation without athletic shoes would also dispute the characterization. This bill is consistent with several Congressional interventions that have corrected a pattern of Federal agencies ignoring or narrowly interpreting domestic sourcing statutes contrary to Congress's intent. During the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, the Committee unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Senator Graham to require the fabric of clothing provided to Afghanistan security forces comply with the Berry Amendment without exception or exemption. In July 2012, 12 Senators introduced legislation to require the United States Olympic Committee adopt a policy that ceremonial athletic uniforms, including accessories such as shoes, be produced in the United States. If American-made uniforms are appropriate for U.S. Olympic athletes and Afghan security personnel, surely our servicemembers deserve the same. Federal funds for clothing worn by new recruits should benefit American workers and American companies rather than workers overseas. This is about supporting American manufacturing jobs and having American soldiers fight and train in American-made footwear. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to provide military recruits with athletic footwear made in the U.S.A.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Senator King that would ensure the Department of Defense provides military recruits with athletic footwear made in the U.S.A. The Berry Amendment, established by Congress in 1941, requires the Department to give preference to clothing and other items made in the United States for any contract valued at $150,000 or more. For decades, the military issued American-made uniforms, including athletic footwear, for our troops. However since fiscal year 2002, the purpose and intent of the Berry Amendment have been undermined by a change in DOD policy. The Army, Air Force, and the Navy now provide a cash voucher that incoming servicemembers use to purchase athletic footwear, without providing any preference for domestically manufactured footwear. DOD claims that a soldier's individual purchase of athletic footwear with a DOD-provided cash allowance is not subject to the Berry Amendment because such individual purchases fall below the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000. Yet, the cash allowances provided with Federal funds for athletic shoes are valued at about $15 million annually, an amount that is 100 times the minimum contract value at which the Berry Amendment applies. Like all other clothing items issued directly by the military services, athletic footwear should be made in the U.S.A. by American companies. It is time for DoD to treat athletic footware like every other uniform item, including boots, and buy them from American manufacturers. This bill would require DOD to comply with the Berry Amendment for footwear either issued directly to or through a cash allowance to servicemembers upon initial entry into the Armed Forces. In other words, athletic footwear would be treated like boots and all other uniform items. In the past, opponents of ensuring compliance with the Berry amendment have argued there is an insufficient domestic market for athletic shoes, that Berry compliant shoes somehow would not provide adequate comfort or safety, and that athletic shoes are not uniform items. None of these objections withstands scrutiny. After the Senate Armed Services Committee required DOD to conduct a market survey to determine vendor interest, DOD found that vendor interest and capacity do exist to support a Berry compliant shoe market. The report also found that at least two American companies can produce high-quality Berry compliant footwear right now in the quantity and at the price point needed. Today, a 100 percent Berry compliant shoe is on the market at a price of $68, $6 less than the current Army allowance of $74, and without requiring waivers. The comfort argument is also based on the unfounded premise that recruits somehow would not enjoy the same degree of comfort or safety with a Berry compliant shoe. Yet the military makes no distinction for boots or other uniform shoes, to no adverse effect upon recruits. To address this concern, however, the amendment would exempt servicemembers requiring a waiver for medical reasons. Finally, I dispute the characterization that athletic shoes are not uniform items. Federal funds are used to purchase the shoes, and recruits are required to wear them. If this is not a uniform item, why are we allocating Federal funding at all? I would also suggest that any initial entry trainee who arrives at a physical training formation without athletic shoes would also dispute the characterization. This bill is consistent with several Congressional interventions that have corrected a pattern of Federal agencies ignoring or narrowly interpreting domestic sourcing statutes contrary to Congress's intent. During the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, the Committee unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Senator Graham to require the fabric of clothing provided to Afghanistan security forces comply with the Berry Amendment without exception or exemption. In July 2012, 12 Senators introduced legislation to require the United States Olympic Committee adopt a policy that ceremonial athletic uniforms, including accessories such as shoes, be produced in the United States. If American-made uniforms are appropriate for U.S. Olympic athletes and Afghan security personnel, surely our servicemembers deserve the same. Federal funds for clothing worn by new recruits should benefit American workers and American companies rather than workers overseas. This is about supporting American manufacturing jobs and having American soldiers fight and train in American-made footwear. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to provide military recruits with athletic footwear made in the U.S.A.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, of course my friend and colleague from Colorado is exactly right, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue and for working with me to develop a bipartisan, commonsense plan that would help to mitigate the harmful effects of the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that took effect on March 1. I want to emphasize that under our proposal, budget targets would still have to be met. We understand the need to confront our enormous Federal debt, which is approaching $17 trillion. But our plan does so in a sensible way. It recognizes that rather than imposing meat-ax cuts, we should be setting priorities. Our bill would give the heads of Federal agencies and departments affected by sequestration the flexibility to implement the required cuts in a much more thoughtful way by preserving vital programs and reducing or eliminating lower priority programs. Our bill also ensures appropriate congressional oversight of these decisions by requiring the agency heads to submit their spending plans to both the House and Senate appropriations committees 5 days before implementing these decisions. These committees and their subcommittees know the budgets of these agencies inside and out and will be able to effectively monitor their spending decisions, just as the committees now oversee reprogramming requests. Congress has already demonstrated that providing flexibility to Federal agencies in a commonsense way to address the unprecedented problems caused by sequestration makes a great deal of sense. Recently Congress passed a bill we authored that gave the Department of Transportation the flexibility to end the furloughs of air traffic controllers and to, instead, reduce spending by transferring unused balances from a grant program. That is the kind of decisionmaking flexibility we are talking about. In this case the furloughs were causing terrible flight delays and had the potential to truly harm the economies of Maine, Colorado, and countless other States that count on tourists visiting our amazing scenery, sampling our extraordinary food, and being with our great people. Had we not come together to pass this bill, the impacts could have been devastating to Maine and to Colorado businesses and their employees. In Maine it would have affected everyone from our wait staff and our innkeepers to our countless tourist attractions. It would have even affected Federal institutions such as the gem of Acadia National Park and our State parks as well. In our States, each season, but particularly during those key peak summer months, we welcome with open arms visitors from around the globe. If those visitors were going to have to sit on a tarmac for 3 hours awaiting a flight, they most likely were going to cancel their trips. I am proud of the work Senator Udall and I did to pass this bipartisan bill, but more can and should be done to give other agencies the same kind of flexibility to set wise spending priorities. I would turn to the Senator from Colorado to ask him if he agrees that isn't a better approach than across-the-board cuts with no flexibility?

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my good friend and colleague. It wouldn't have happened without his support. We took a bipartisan approach, and that is the kind of approach we are taking today in urging our colleagues to look at our bill and our leaders to move it. Many agencies face the same challenges that were encountered by the FAA, and many agencies know of better ways to meet the sequestration targets. I have long believed these across-the-board cuts where we don't prioritize simply do not make sense. Last week, the Department of Defense announced that because the Navy was able to identify cost-effective ways to meet its budget targets, thousands of hardworking men and women at our Nation's naval shipyards, such as the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME, would not have to be furloughed. I had long argued the Department of Defense has the flexibility to minimize the furloughs because we gave them that authority as part of the continuing resolution. I would be remiss if I did not note, however, my disappointment that some of the workers at the shipyard, and others, such as those in the National Guard and at other facilities, such as the Defense Accounting Services Center in Limestone, ME, still face furloughs. There are other important programs as well. Biomedical researchers and school superintendents are also in a quandary of having little or no flexibility to implement the sequestration targets. Instead of enacting piecemeal fixes--whether it is the FAA or it is the meat inspectors--our bill would empower administrators to head off this problem and avoid indiscriminate spending cuts. We can mitigate the harmful effects of sequestration, protect jobs, and avoid mindless spending cuts while tackling the very real problem of excessive and unnecessary spending by simply allowing managers to distinguish between vital programs, to be creative, and to cut those that are of lesser importance. I know my colleague from Colorado would agree that no business facing the need to cut expenses would ever treat every program and function and service of that business as if they were of equal worth. Instead, the business managers and executives and employees would evaluate all the programs and set priorities. That is all we are asking. I thank the Senator from Colorado, my good friend Senator Udall, for his strong partnership on our effort to protect the jobs of hard- working Americans, prevent arbitrary spending cuts, yet deal with an unsustainable $16.8 trillion debt. We know our approach would go a long way toward allowing priorities to be set. After all, if we are not going to set priorities, to make the tough decisions and distinguish among absolutely vital programs and those that could be cut or eliminated, then we might as well go home and just have a computer apply a formula to the budget. That is not why we are here and that is not what the American people expect. They expect us to exercise judgment and make good decisions.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, could the Presiding Officer inform me of whether there is an order to proceed right now or whether there is some additional time for morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I understand that Senator Baldwin is on her way to make her maiden speech, and I promise I will stop talking the moment she enters the Chamber. I thank my colleague from Colorado. Later today, the Senate will vote on a resolution that has been introduced by Senators Menendez and Graham. I am pleased to join my Senate colleagues in cosponsoring this resolution, which reaffirms our commitment to a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship and to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. At this time in our history, it is more important than ever that we demonstrate a firm commitment to our allies--even if the neighborhood they are in looks more like a tinderbox than it has in decades. This resolution reaffirms that the United States will be a reliable friend and a determined ally, even in dangerous times--indeed, especially in dangerous times. We are at a critical juncture in our efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. During my time in the Senate, I have repeatedly supported legislation imposes sanctions on Iran and puts pressure on the regime to change course. I worked with my good friend former-Senator Lieberman to pass legislation which ensures that organizations that inspect commercial ships for the U.S. government are not also providing services to governments like Iran that sponsor terrorism. This resolution reiterates the significance that we place on keeping the full force of sanctions on Iran. In the face of an existential threat to our country, the American people would expect the U.S. to take action. This resolution says that we will support Israel's right to do the same. Let me read the powerful language in the resolution. Congress ``declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel's right to self-defense.'' Congress ``urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.'' I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the United States Senate as well as with President Obama to close the loopholes in current sanctions legislation and to ensure that the cooperation that has existed between the United States and the State of Israel for over 60 years remains steadfast and unshakeable.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. It certainly is ironic at the least. It is an opportunity for the Republican House to argue for its budget. I voted against the final version of the Senate budget, but I think we should go to conference and try to work out an agreement. The instructions suggested by the Senator from Arizona are entirely reasonable. Let's get on with the process. Let's do what the American people expect us to do; that is, to negotiate a conference report that then would be brought back to both Houses for consideration. That is what I urge my colleagues to do.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I just want to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Arizona. It is accurate that no one on our side of the aisle supported the final budget. The fact is, for the first time in years, a budget was brought to the Senate floor. Senator Murray presided over a very open process with debate and with plenty of opportunity for amendments to be offered. There is simply no reason the very reasonable approach suggested by Senator McCain that would allow us to go to conference should not be adopted. We have called repeatedly for a return to regular order in this body. Regular order is going to conference. Both the House and the Senate have passed budget resolutions, and it is important that there be a conference committee to work out the differences, which are considerable, so that we will have a framework with binding allocations for the Appropriations Committees.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield to the Senator.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on May 18, Americans will join together in observance of Armed Forces Day to thank the men and women of our military for their courageous and dedicated service to our Nation. This occasion has a special significance in my home State, as it marks the 10th anniversary of a remarkable group of patriots called the Maine Troop Greeters. The story of the Maine Troop Greeters is that of hundreds of patriotic citizens who, since May of 2003, have gathered at Bangor International Airport to greet every single flight carrying our military personnel across the Atlantic to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or other overseas assignments or bringing them home. Whether these flights land at Bangor in the light of day or the dark of night, in fair weather or foul, the Troop Greeters are there with cookies and coffee, cheers and songs, and handshakes and hugs. It is the story of more than 1.3 million servicemembers and nearly 350 military dogs who have landed in Bangor on some 6,700 flights. Without exception, our troops have been astonished, overwhelmed, encouraged, and most of all, welcomed and thanked by this spontaneous outpouring of gratitude and respect. Bangor's tradition of greeting troop flights began long before 2003. On a frigid March morning in 1991, a large group of grateful Mainers came to the airport to welcome home returning troops from Operation Desert Storm. One of those soldiers, MSG Kevin Tillman of Kentucky, borrowed a saxophone from a high school musician and performed a spine- tingling rendition of our national anthem. It was a moment that electrified America. To underscore the powerful and lasting impact of the Maine Troop Greeters, Master Sergeant Tillman returned to Bangor in 2011, 20 years after that unforgettable moment, to perform in concert with our high school band. I am often asked by my Senate colleagues why this Troop Greeter phenomenon is so powerful in Bangor. It is not just that the city I am proud to call home is the location of the easternmost airport in the United States, a former Air Force base that can accommodate transatlantic flights. For many of our troops, Bangor is either the last American soil they touch upon deployment or the first they touch upon their return. That simple answer only scratches the surface. The phenomenon of the Maine Troop Greeters is not merely a matter of geography and facilities but the manifestation of a caring community and of the American spirit. Throughout our Nation's history, young Americans have left the comfort and security of home to defend our freedom and to extend the blessing of freedom to others. And behind patriots in uniform have stood patriots at home to honor their service. The Maine Troop Greeters are individuals acting out of personal conviction, but their efforts are magnified by the support of local businesses, civic organizations, and the Bangor International Airport. Their generosity strengthens the spirit of volunteerism that is a core American value. One of the principles of true service is that it is not something that is done only when convenient but a commitment sincerely made and faithfully kept. That is the principle that guides our men and women in uniform and that guides those who honor and support them. It has been said that it is easy to take for granted that which has never been taken away. Thanks to the veterans who served in the past, America has never lost its freedom. Thanks to those who serve today, we never will. Armed Forces Day reminds us of the high price some pay for what we all cherish, and the Maine Troop Greeters exemplify the gratitude all Americans share.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am delighted to commend the Maine School of Science and Mathematics, MSSM, of Limestone, ME, on being recognized among the best high schools in our country. MSSM was recently awarded an outstanding 13th-place ranking among more than 21,000 public high schools included in the 2013 U.S. News and World Report national rankings on school achievement. I would like to engage my fellow Senator from Maine in saluting this accomplishment, which makes us both proud. This award recognizes that MSSM students achieve at the highest level academically. MSSM is a top-performing school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and customizing instruction. The school's faculty works closely with students to forge a strong school community where students are encouraged to pursue their interests. I applaud the students who are working hard to excel and in doing so, making their families, communities, and State proud. I also want to commend the administrators, teachers, and staff of MSSM who are succeeding in their mission to generate confidence and momentum for learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students and are helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible learners and engaged citizens. I am pleased that the U.S. News and World Report has recognized the achievements of the Maine School of Science and Mathematics, and I congratulate the entire community for this outstanding achievement. Having grown up in Northern Maine, I could not be more proud of what these students and this faculty have achieved.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, all over America concern has been growing that the implementation of ObamaCare will cause serious damage to our economy and to our health care system. Lost wages, soaring insurance rates, more bureaucracy, and less access to care are just some of the adverse consequences we are beginning to see. There are as many reasons for concern as there are flaws in this ill-advised law. Today, I wish to focus on just one of these flaws; that is, the Affordable Care Act's definition of a full-time employee. I also will comment on legislation I have introduced to fix this one flaw. My preference, of course, would be for us to repeal ObamaCare and start all over, taking some good features of the law, such as the feature that allows young people to stay on their parents' health care policy until age 26, some of the provisions having to do with preventive care, and some of the provisions having to do with preexisting conditions. We should have crafted a bill that focused on lowering health care costs because it is the high cost of health care that is the reason we have millions of Americans who are uninsured. Here we are with a deeply flawed law that is having very serious adverse consequences for the people of our country. Let me talk further about the issue of the definition of a full-time employee. Under ObamaCare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as full time. That is a definition that is completely out of step with standard employment practices in the United States today. According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American works 8.8 hours per day, which equates to 44 hours per week. The ObamaCare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice; likewise, the ObamaCare definition of full-time employee is one-quarter lower than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement this new law. In that report the GAO described a full-time equivalent employee as the measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works the equivalent of 40 hours per week for 52 weeks. We also know, generally speaking, that employers are required to pay overtime to workers after 40 hours a week. That is another indication that 40 hours a week is the standard definition of a full-time employee. Yet, inconceivably, ObamaCare defines a full-time worker as one who works only 30 hours a week. The effect of using such a low hourly threshold is to artificially drive up the number of full-time workers for purposes of calculating the Draconian penalties to which employers can be exposed by ObamaCare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional full-time equivalent employee. Needless to say, these penalties will discourage businesses from growing or adding jobs, particularly for employers who are close to that 50-job trigger. In addition, these penalties create a powerful incentive for employers to cut the hours their employees are allowed to work so they are no longer considered full-time for the purposes of this law. This is not some hypothetical concern. I have heard from employers in Maine who feel they are going to be forced to stay under the 50- employee threshold, and they are even considering, very reluctantly, cutting the number of hours per week their employees are working. Similar accounts have appeared in the media. For example, last week the Los Angeles Times reported that the city of Long Beach, CA, is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time workers to just 27 hours a week to make sure they do not work over the 30-hour threshold. This is a municipality that is cutting the hours and thus the wages of its workers simply because of the requirements of ObamaCare. According to this news story, the parent company for the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurant chains is limiting the hours of some of their employees for the same reason. I would ask unanimous consent that the Los Angeles Times article entitled ``Part-timers to lose pay amid health act's new math'' be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. Bringing it closer to home, one Maine business I know has 47 employees. It is doing pretty well and would like to create more jobs and hire more employees, but it simply will not because of the onerous penalties it would incur once it gets to 50 employees. If more businesses follow suit, millions of American workers could find their hours and their earnings cut back, with jobs lost to them at a time when our country is still struggling with an unacceptably high rate of unemployment. A study just published by the Labor Center at the University of California, Berkeley, underscores the danger. That study, which examined the hours worked in businesses with 100 or more employees, found that 6.4 million workers in these firms worked between 30 and 36 hours per week and another 3.6 million workers have variable work schedules that make them vulnerable to having their hours cut as a direct result of ObamaCare. The study identified 2.3 million workers as being at the greatest risk. Not surprisingly, these are workers who are employed in the retail trade, nursing homes, restaurants, and hotels. These are some of the most vulnerable workers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the study I just referred to immediately following my remarks. Let me cite an actual example from my State of Maine. Peter Daigle, who runs Lafayette Hotels, the largest hotel chain in the State of Maine, has told me that many of his 800 employees work between 30 and 40 hours a week, and that, from a financial standpoint, it would make sense for his company to limit their hours to ensure they do not go over the 30-hour threshold. This is an artificial limit that is driven solely by ObamaCare. As Peter puts it: It concerns us that employers are being put in a position that they would have to cut associates' hours just to meet a Federal regulation. Believe me, the owners of the Lafayette chain of hotels are civic- minded, good employers, who care deeply about the well-being of their employees. During the consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate adopted my amendment calling for legislation setting a more sensible definition of ``full-time'' employee for purposes of ObamaCare penalties. Last month, I introduced a bill to protect Americans who may otherwise find their hours are curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of the unrealistic definition of a full-time employee that is included in ObamaCare. Under my bill, a full-time employee would be an individual who works a 40-hour workweek. That only makes sense. This is a sensible, commonsense definition in keeping with actual practice. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, S. 701. It will not solve all of the problems--the many problems--of ObamaCare, but it will help to ensure millions of American workers do not have their hours reduced because of an artificially low, unrealistic definition in the law that is completely inconsistent with actual practice in this country.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend The Aroostook Medical Center, TAMC, in Presque Isle, ME, for its efforts to improve its energy efficiency with compressed natural gas, CNG. Dedicated to environmental stewardship and improving the community, TAMC is at the cutting edge with its conversion to CNG to meet the hospital's heating, cooling, and other energy needs. CNG represents a sensible effort to use a viable and affordable domestic energy alternative. This event demonstrates TAMC's efforts to create, sustain, and grow a modern health care organization to continue making a positive difference in Aroostook County. The countless and continuing efforts this northern Maine hospital is making to energy efficiency are to be commended for their lasting impact. Converting to CNG is just one of the ways TAMC has reduced its carbon footprint. This efficient source of energy is safer to work with, will lower costs, and will burn more cleanly. The conversion to CNG will not only benefit the hospital and its patients and employees directly, but also will benefit the entire community by reducing emissions. TAMC is quickly becoming a leader in environmentally friendly practices in northern Maine. The hospital has made changes to its nutritional program by eliminating disposable kitchenware, which has reduced the amount of waste it sends to the area's landfill. In addition, TAMC partners with the University of Maine at Presque Isle to improve composting. TAMC also purchases produce from MSAD No. 1 school farm, local farmers, and other small local growers to support the community and reduce transportation emissions. Whether it is taking actions as small as reducing waste or as large as converting to CNG, TAMC is making a positive impact on the area, improving both public health and the environment. I commend TAMC for its commitment to conservation and improving efficiency. TAMC is truly standing up to its motto, TAMC: More Than a Hospital.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on May 25, loving family members and countless friends will gather in Presque Isle, ME, to celebrate the remarkable life of Audrey Bishop Thibodeau, who passed away January 2, at the age of 97. I rise today in tribute to a caring citizen and dear friend. It has been said that we all have a birth date and a death date, with a dash in between. It's what we do with our dash that counts. Audrey Thibodeau's dash was long, and she made it count. She was a devoted wife, a wonderful mother, an educator, a farmer, and an entrepreneur. Wherever there was a need, she was a committed volunteer and a generous philanthropist. She was born Audrey Elaine Bishop on December 13, 1915, in Caribou, ME, my hometown. She attended Caribou public schools and, in 1937, graduated from the University of Maine with a degree in nutrition. It was while teaching high school home economics that she developed one of the great passions of her life--raising awareness and fostering education for students with reading disabilities. Her commitment to youth was also seen years later when she founded a Pony Club to help young people learn the skills and responsibilities of horsemanship. In 1939, she married Lawrence Thibodeau, a high school classmate. After a brief adventure with farming in New York State, they returned to Maine and settled in Fort Kent, on the Canadian border. It was there that Audrey immersed herself in French to better appreciate the culture of the region. The couple, with their growing family, relocated to Presque Isle in 1946 and soon became valued members of that community. Audrey's love of local culture led her to become instrumental in the incorporation of the Vera Estes House into the Presque Isle Historical Society and the creation of the Cultural and Museum Center at the Old Presque Isle Fire House, which celebrates the heritage of the local area. Audrey witnessed much history during her long life. Just as important, she was devoted to preserving the rich history of Aroostook County for future generations. Her husband, Lawrence Thibodeau, better known as ``Tib,'' passed away in 2008, but he will long be remembered for his contributions to Maine agriculture and support of the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service. Together, the couple will always be remembered for the Larry and Audrey Thibodeau Scholarship that helps Aroostook County students pursue careers in medicine. After Audrey's passing, her family carried on her commitment to others by asking that memorial contributions be made to the Audrey B. Thibodeau Charitable and Educational Fund. Audrey's philanthropy and volunteerism earned her accolades from the Maine Legislature and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Presque Isle Area Chamber of Commerce. Her service and compassion will always be cherished by the people of Aroostook County. A strong leader, Audrey Thibodeau filled her dash with an infectious smile, enthusiasm for life, assistance to others, community participation, a dedication to Aroostook County, and a great deal of love for her remarkable family. May her memory inspire us all to follow her example.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Marketplace Fairness Act. I applaud Senator Enzi for his many years of work on this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill rectifies a fundamental unfairness in our current system. Right now, out-of-State Internet sellers, so-called remote sellers, have an advantage over Main Street businesses. Main Street businesses have to collect sales taxes on every transaction. Because remote sellers don't have to charge this tax, they enjoy a price advantage over the mom-and-pop businesses that form the backbone of our communities. This bill would allow States to collect sales taxes on remote sales, thereby leveling the playing field with Main Street businesses. It is important to recognize that this bill does not authorize any new or higher tax, nor does it impose an Internet tax. It simply helps ensure that taxes already owed are paid. I would like to engage Senator Enzi in a colloquy regarding the manner in which the bill is to be implemented. As introduced, the bill would require some businesses to start collecting sales taxes in as little as 90 days. I hope that my colleague from Wyoming would agree that is too short a time period, and I appreciate the fact that he has offered an amendment that includes a 6-month delay. I believe, however, that a delay of at least 1 year is needed to allow businesses time to implement the new systems and software necessary for compliance. I do appreciate that the Senator from Wyoming exempted small businesses with sales under $1 million, as I had urged. Nevertheless, from a covered seller's perspective, complying with the Marketplace Fairness Act requires more than just installing new software. Multichannel retailers--those who sell online, through catalogs, over the phones, and in stores--have their own unique order processing systems. Tax collection software must be programmed to link to each component of their order processing systems. This step alone could involve considerable programming time for each online retailer. Each retailer's tax department, or outside consultants, will be required to research and develop a comprehensive understanding of the unique sales and use tax policies in every State where their online customers reside to make sure the programming for their tax collection software is correct. That involves answering a number of questions for each State. The differing treatment of athletic apparel provides a great example of the complexity involved. In some States, clothing and athletic footwear are exempt from tax. In others, they are exempt only up to a certain price level. Yet other States make a distinction between clothing and footwear used for athletic purposes--which they tax--and clothing and footwear used for general purposes--which they do not tax. In those States, systems must be programmed to correctly treat articles that can be viewed as either athletic apparel or general clothing, depending on the user. Board shorts, sneakers, and windbreakers are just a few examples of common items that give rise to substantial complexity. Retailers will need to invest additional hours in tax analyst and programmer time to ensure their systems are able to address these issues seamlessly. Even with a 1-year delay, retailers will have to begin early, and move quickly, to implement the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Ms. COLLINS. I would also like to note that the collection of sales taxes online will be new not only for many retailers, but also for consumers who are used to the current system. It is important to implement the new law correctly, from the outset, for these retailers and their customers. In this regard, I believe that it is also important to make sure that the implementation of the new law does not disrupt the busy holiday season. For this reason, I believe that States should be prohibited from exercising their new authority under the Marketplace Fairness Act during the last quarter of the first year after enactment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 771, offered on behalf of myself and Senator King, and I would ask for its immediate consideration.