Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, my dear friend Senator Lieberman, in rising today in support of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. First, let me join Senator Lieberman in commending Senators Schumer and Alexander for their leadership on this bill. Senator Alexander, in particular, has worked so hard on this issue. In fact, I am convinced we would not be where we are today without his persistent leadership. He deserves great credit for his patience and his dogged determination to bring this bill and this issue to the floor. Senators Reid and McConnell also deserve great credit. They made the commitment in January to make reform of the nominations process a priority. Finally, I wish to recognize Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the committee, on which I have the privilege of being the ranking member. He and I have also been part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort to craft this bill. It is an effort we need to see more often in this Senate if we are to tackle and actually solve the many problems facing our Nation. This bill before us addresses shortcomings in the process of confirming Presidential appointees without diminishing the constitutional roles of the President or of the Senate. The fact is this is a very modest bill that takes limited but much needed steps to reform the confirmation process. When we look at the full-time positions that now require Senate confirmation, this bill would eliminate only approximately 85 full-time positions, a truly modest number. These positions were selected because either they do not have significant policymaking authority or funding responsibilities or report directly to a Senate-confirmed official. To be clear, not included in these numbers are almost 3,000 officer corps positions that would no longer require Senate confirmation under this bill. But let me quickly explain exactly what those officer positions are, because when many people hear the words ``officer positions,'' they are going to think the Department of Defense and that would raise the issue of civilian control of the military. Let me say these are not military or Department of Defense positions. Rather, they are members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps of the Department of Commerce. Apart from these officer corps positions, more than 83 percent of all currently confirmed positions and more than 90 percent of all the full- time positions will continue to require Senate approval under this bill. Let me emphasize that again because, unfortunately, there is some misinformation about this bill. More than 90 percent of the full-time positions in the Federal Government that have required Senate confirmation will continue to require Senate approval under our bill. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the ability of Congress to create new Senate-confirmed positions in the future. It may be that there is a new department created someday or a new position that is very important. The Senate can choose to exercise its will to make those new positions subject to Senate confirmation. The companion standing order reported by the Rules Committee proposes that some additional 240 positions go through a new expedited confirmation process. Although that resolution is not now before us, it will be, I hope, shortly after we conclude our work on this bill. So I wish to explain briefly what the process would be under that resolution. That expedited process would still require nominees to respond to all committee questionnaires and would still provide the opportunity for closer scrutiny of a nominee if requested by a single Senator--any Senator. The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to exercise its constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service, particularly when they are being asked to serve as a part-time member of an advisory board. A letter from three of our former colleagues, one House Member and two Senators, put it well. The bipartisan Policy Center in endorsing this bill sent us a letter that is signed by former Congressmen and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Senator Pete Domenici, and Senator Trent Lott, who of course served as the majority leader of the Senate. Here is what they said, and here is what we heard over and over at the hearing Senator Lieberman and I conducted before our committee. This is the bipartisan Policy Center's conclusion: Many public spirited people are discouraged from serving in appointed office because of the length and the extreme adversarial nature of the confirmation process. This is an issue the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. In fact, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of those hearings, the committee reported favorably reform legislation. A few of the provisions of that bill were later incorporated into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which I, along with Senator Lieberman, authored. Let me give our colleagues some more background, some of which has been covered by the chairman of the committee but I think is important to repeat to counter some misimpressions about this bill that somehow it undermines our constitutional obligations. In fact, the Constitution, in the appointments clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who in his judgment is best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our government. Then we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment to determine if these nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust. But at the same time, the Constitution envisions the appointment of lesser officers by the President alone. Specifically, the Constitution provides that ``Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'' So that process is spelled out in the Constitution. The National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. They differ a bit from some of the statistics the chairman has given because he is using CRS, but what they show is the enormous increase in the number of positions that are now subject to Senate confirmation and approval. When President Kennedy came to office, he had just 286 positions to fill that had the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. But using those titles, there were only 286 when President Kennedy assumed office. By the end of the Clinton administration, there were 914 positions with those titles. Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are between 1,200 and 1,400 positions in total that are appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Too often, that large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in vetting, nominating, and confirming these appointees. I would also point out that there is a great expense that goes along with this process. Having an FBI background check is expensive. Having our congressional investigators do their own vetting process is expensive. And many a nominee will tell you how expensive it is for the nominee to go through this process. The result of the length of this process is that administrations can go for months without key officials in these many agencies. That is why you will find there is bipartisan support from previous administrations urging us to finally tackle this issue. The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until 6 months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place. Our enemies take note of that fact. That is what the 9/11 Commission found. And it creates a national security vulnerability that terrorists can and have exploited. We have seen that in the United States, we have seen that in Madrid, that when there is a change in administration, it is a particularly difficult time, particularly if we do not have our appointees in place. As I have mentioned, Senators Schumer and Alexander have been the bipartisan authors of this bill, which has been cosponsored not only by Senator Lieberman and myself but by members of the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. But I believe, of all members of the working group, Senator Alexander may have the best perspective. In fact, I believe he does have the best perspective because he is one of the few Members of the Senate who have served as a Cabinet Secretary and as a Senator. He has endured the nominations process himself, and I am sure he will explain what he went through in his comments later, but he will talk about how long it was, that it was 9 months before he had a chief financial officer. It took him 6 months, I believe, to be confirmed, and he could not get his team in place because the process was so bogged down. The nominations reform bill we take up today removes only 203 positions out of an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 from the Senate confirmation requirement, and most of those positions are part-time advisory board members. I would ask my colleagues, should the Senate really spend its time and its resources confirming 10 part-time members of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board? I am not in any way denigrating the work of this board or the people who are willing to serve on it. I am just suggesting that I do not think that board requires our confirmation. What about the National Board of Education Sciences or the National Museum and Library Sciences Board, which has 20 part-time members, all of whom have to be confirmed by the Senate? Again, I would point out there is a cost involved for my colleagues, and that involves everyone here who is concerned about the amount of money we are spending in the Federal Government. There is a cost to an FBI background investigation. There is a cost to having a sufficient number of staff to go out and do the kinds of background checks and vetting that we do. There is a cost to the nominees involved, who have to fill out all these forms, who have to be very careful that they are divesting themselves of certain assets. And it makes sense for the Office of Government Ethics, which already has a system in place to check for those kinds of conflicts, to not have its work duplicated, and that is what happens now far too often. This legislation will free the Senate and enable us to focus on those nominees whose jobs are absolutely critical to our Nation, who do have significant policy responsibility, who do have significant control over Federal funds, and that will make a difference. It will also enable the Senate to spend more time on the critical work of how can we best create more jobs in this country, how can we reduce our unsustainable $14 trillion debt, how can we strengthen our homeland security, and how can we conduct more effective oversight of the executive branch. Isn't it a better use of our time to be holding oversight hearings to examine the enormous duplication the Government Accountability Office has found across government that wastes hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars, rather than spending our time worrying about the confirmation of 20 part-time members of the National Museum and Library Services Board? Over the years, our committee has continued to hear from experts on the executive nominations process. In April of this year, we received a letter from the bipartisan Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process, which is chaired by our former colleagues, Senators Frist and Robb, as well as we have heard from the former Director of Presidential Personnel for the Bush administration, Clay Johnson, and the former Chief of Staff for the Clinton administration, Mack McLarty. They wrote--and I think this puts it well--that ``[m]ost everyone agrees the federal appointments process is broken.'' They underscored that the bill before us will help the next administration ``to put in place very early in its first year the . . . people that the new Department heads need to get off to a fast start . . . working effectively with Congress.'' I hope we can agree to undertake the modest reforms we have included in this bill. I hope we do not let this legislation and the Rules Committee resolution get caught up in the turf battles and the power struggles that too often sink good government initiatives in this body. This bill is a step in the right direction and a step we should take together by an overwhelming margin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if they have not already been printed in the Record, that letters endorsing the bill from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Partnership for Public Service, Senator Fred Thompson, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Bill Frist and Chuck Robb be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein and Coburn supporting an amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and the ethanol import tariff. These policies are fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unwise, and economically indefensible. Today we have another opportunity to take action to end them. Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: we subsidize it, we protect it from competition, or we require its use. Right now, ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support. The ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive. The Government Accountability Office has found that the tax credit costs American taxpayers a staggering $6 billion annually. This is quite a sum to prop up a fuel that is causing land conversion for corn production, commodity and food prices to rise, and is barely putting a dent in our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. With our amendment, we have the opportunity to immediately save American taxpayers nearly $3 billion for the remainder of 2011 alone. Ethanol use is mandated under the renewable fuels standard, RFS, which guarantees market for corn ethanol. Collectively, the first generation biofuels industry will receive tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies through the year 2022. If the current subsidy were allowed to continue for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn based ethanol that the RFS already requires them to use. We simply cannot afford to pay the oil industry for following the law. The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that the costs of the current ethanol subsidies and tariffs far outweigh their benefits. Just last summer, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of almost $6 billion, or roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per job. While expanding our capacity to generate alternative, domestic fuel sources is an important step toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil, I have serious concerns about the effects of increased ethanol use. There are other alternative sources of energy that make far more sense. The energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors are already struggling to adapt to the existing ethanol mandates. I have concerns with the partial waiver issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for the use of E15, a blend of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. Many residents in my state have already experienced difficulties using gasoline blended with just 10 percent ethanol, finding that it causes problems in older cars, snowmobiles, boats, and lawn mowers. The EPA's E15 waiver fails to adequately protect against misfueling and will add unnecessary confusion at the gas pump for consumers. We simply cannot place so many engines in jeopardy. These first generation biofuel mandates also present environmental concerns as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased air pollution because the mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of engine emission controls. Over recent years, we have also seen food and feed prices increase as crops have been diverted for the production of corn-based ethanol. We should be raising food crops for food, not for fuel. Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and I held a series of hearings in 2008 to examine the impact of corn based ethanol on food prices and we found that it certainly had a negative impact. The cost of this policy to our Nation and its taxpayers, particularly given our current fiscal crisis, can no longer be ignored. At a time when we are projecting a deficit this year alone of $1.5 trillion, how can we justify spending $6 billion to subsidize ethanol? I urge my colleagues, especially those who questioned the process used to bring an identical amendment to the floor just a couple days ago, to join me today in supporting the Feinstein-Coburn amendment to repeal these fiscally indefensible corn-based ethanol subsidies.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in the 1930s, the forces of tyranny and oppression seemed to be taking over the world. The American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary were especially concerned that tyrannical regimes were indoctrinating their young people in hateful ideology, and so they countered with an initiative to better educate young Americans in democracy and leadership. Since then, some 2 million high school students have been delegates to Boys and Girls State programs throughout our Nation. Forty-one years ago, I served as a Dirigo Girls State delegate in my State of Maine, and I will never forget that inspiring week. Today I wish to recognize Nora Thombs of New Sharon, ME, for her remarkable commitment to this program. When Dirigo Girls State convenes on June 19, Nora will mark her 50th year of involvement. The first year was as a delegate during her high school years. The other 49 have been helping to bring this great experience to other young Maine women. From her early service as a staff volunteer to her current position as director, she has helped forge new generations of involved citizens. Nora exemplifies the principles that Boys and Girls State instills. Although she never sought elective office, her appreciation of the importance of every person's vote and her knowledge about the process of government made her an effective and respected town meeting moderator, one of the most challenging roles in local government throughout New England. The leadership skills she learned helped her become an outstanding teacher and principal. But the best evidence of those principles is Nora's dedication to spreading them. As soon as one year's Girls State week concludes, she is hard at work planning the next--working with high schools, recruiting delegates, and arranging for speakers, presentations, and experiences that will inform and inspire. It is an honor to congratulate Nora Thombs for her 50 years of contributions to Dirigo Girls State. She is proof that the delegates of yesterday are the leaders of today. Thanks to her, the delegates of today will be the leaders of tomorrow.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. In February of this year I introduced a 7-Point Jobs Plan aimed at creating jobs, investing in education and training, assisting small businesses, reinvigorating American manufacturing, and eliminating bureaucratic redtape. Among other things, my bill aims to provide EDA assistance for areas hit hard by job losses, and specifically those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, process. The amendment that I am offering today would build on this plan by making it easier for communities affected by the BRAC process to access Federal funding to further their economic development goals and to recover from the loss of jobs. Currently, most Economic Development Administration, EDA, projects are subject to a 50-percent match; however, the EDA is allowed to increase the Federal share--up to 80 percent--based on the relative need of the area in which the project will be located. The bill being debated would expand the list of circumstances under which the Federal share may be increased. My amendment would simply clarify that communities affected by ``military base closures, realignments, or mission growth'' are among those eligible for a reduced local cost share. Maine has lost more than 5,000 military and civilian jobs as a result of the unfortunate decision to close Brunswick Naval Air Station. Several other States face similar or even greater losses. The BRAC recommendations, released by the Pentagon in May of 2005, caused Maine and many other States to face a daunting task. All of us across the State and region--political leaders, business leaders, and individual citizens from cities and small towns--worked together to build strong arguments for our bases. While we did have some great success, Maine has suffered a terrible blow with the closing of the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Nevertheless, the State and region's leaders have worked together to ensure that the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station was accompanied by a commitment to the economic redevelopment of the base in order to lessen the impact of its closure on the entire midcoast region. The large numbers of workers in Maine, and around the Nation, who have been or will be displaced as a result of a base closure deserve to have access to necessary resources, including job training and job placement services. The EDA, with its mission to promote economic development and stability, should be leveraging taxpayer dollars to assist these struggling communities as we work to lead America to a recovery from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution. A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the impact of emissions reductions. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, this monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high. Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species than we had previously thought. For example, as of 2008, every state in the country has issued mercury advisories for human fish consumption. These advisories cover 57 percent of the Nation's total lake acreage, and 68 percent of our total river miles. This is 19 percent more lake acreage and 42 percent more river area than in 2006. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information--information that is currently not available. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions. Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in aquatic and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation. The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program; establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet; and require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that are required to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years. We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide EPA the data it needs to make decisions that protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution. A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the impact of emissions reductions. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, this monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high. Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species than we had previously thought. For example, as of 2008, every state in the country has issued mercury advisories for human fish consumption. These advisories cover 57 percent of the Nation's total lake acreage, and 68 percent of our total river miles. This is 19 percent more lake acreage and 42 percent more river area than in 2006. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information--information that is currently not available. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions. Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in aquatic and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation. The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program; establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet; and require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that are required to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years. We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide EPA the data it needs to make decisions that protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Coburn and Feinstein in offering an amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and the ethanol import tariff. These policies are fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unwise, and economically indefensible. Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: either we subsidize it, we protect it from competition, or we require its use. Right now, ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support. The ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive. The Government Accountability Office has found that the tax credit costs American taxpayers a staggering $6 billion annually. This is quite a sum to prop up a fuel that is causing land conversion for corn production, commodity and food prices to rise, and is barely putting a dent in our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. With our amendment, which has an effective date of July 1, we have the opportunity to immediately save American taxpayers nearly $3 billion in just the 6 months remaining in this year. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires the production of at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022, up from the original 2005 Energy Policy Act, which required 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Collectively, the first generation biofuels industry will receive tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies through the year 2022. If the current subsidy were allowed to continue for 5 years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We simply cannot afford to pay the oil industry for following the law. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that the costs of the current ethanol subsidies and tariffs far outweigh their benefits. The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of almost $6 billion. That is roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per job. While expanding our capacity to generate alternative domestic fuel sources is an important step toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil, I have serious concerns about the effects of increased ethanol use. There are other alternative sources of energy that make far more sense. The energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors are already struggling to adapt to the existing ethanol mandates. I am disappointed the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a partial waiver for the use of E-15, a blend of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. Many residents in my State have already experienced difficulties using gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol, finding that it causes problems in older cars, snowmobiles, boats, lawn mowers, and off-the- road vehicles. The EPA's E-15 waiver fails to adequately protect against misfueling and will add unnecessary confusion at the gas pump for consumers. We simply cannot place so many engines in jeopardy. These first-generation biofuel mandates also present environmental concerns, as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants because the mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of mission control devices and systems installed on engines. In addition, over recent years, we have seen food and feed prices increase as crops have been diverted to first-generation biofuel production. I think of it this way: We should be raising crops for food, not for fuel. Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and I held a series of hearings in 2008 that examined the impact of corn-based ethanol on food prices, and we found that it certainly had a negative impact. For one thing, crops that had been grown to support other grains were being converted to produce corn. The land was being switched to corn production, and the corn was no longer available for the products that used corn for food, but instead was being diverted to the production of ethanol. The bottom line is that we can no longer ignore the cost of this policy to our Nation and its taxpayers, particularly given our current fiscal crisis. At a time when we are projecting a deficit, this year alone, of $1.5 trillion, why in the world are we spending $6 billion subsidizing ethanol? Subsidizing the blending of corn-based ethanol into gasoline is simply fiscally indefensible. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Coburn-Feinstein amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and to eliminate the ethanol import tariff. 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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. In early 1981, JoAnn and Ray Pike of Lewiston, ME, became concerned about the growing number of families and elderly in their community who were going hungry. Inspired by a newspaper story about an organization in Kansas City that received food donations from the food industry to distribute to those in need, the Pikes and their home prayer group turned concern into action. On Palm Sunday of that year, the people of the twin cities of Lewiston-Auburn joined in a walkathon and raised $6,000. The Good Shepherd Food Bank was born. Thirty years later, it serves all 16 Maine counties, providing nourishment and hope to more than 70,000 Maine people each month. This remarkable story of compassion started small. The first food bank was located in an apartment and garage at the Pike home. Within 8 months, the quantity of donated food outgrew that space and the operation moved to a former textile mill in Lewiston. Today, the food bank has more than 100,000-square feet of warehouse space in Lewiston, Portland, and Brewer, enough to store 12 million pounds of food per year. At first, a handful of food companies joined this effort. Word of the good work being done in Lewiston quickly spread, and food manufacturers, distributors, and supermarkets throughout Maine stepped forward--more than 200 companies now contribute to the food bank. Getting so much food to so many people over such a large area is a great challenge. It is a challenge that has been met by volunteers. The Good Shepherd Food Bank has established partnerships with more than 600 organizations throughout Maine--churches, charities, and civic clubs-- that form a vast distribution network. This results in an operation of extraordinary efficiency. For every $1 donated to support food bank operations, $8.50 worth of food is provided. As a founding member of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I know we have done much here in Washington to ensure food security for all, but that there is more to do. I also know that so much of the real work of helping those in need is done in our communities by caring and dedicated citizens. The Good Shepherd Food Bank of Maine is a shining example of such caring and dedication, and I congratulate this wonderful organization and its many supporters on 30 years of inspiring service.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from collecting or using information about political contributions made by businesses or individuals that seek to do business with the Federal Government. My bill would keep politics out of Federal contracting. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Rules Committee Ranking Member Lamar Alexander, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight Ranking Member Rob Portman, as well as our colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ron Johnson, Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, John Cornyn, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, John Thune, John Barrasso, Roger Wicker, Mike Johanns, Dan Coats, Roy Blunt, and Kelly Ayotte. We learned in April that the Obama administration was seriously considering requiring Federal agencies to collect information about campaign contributions by companies, some of their employees, and even their directors as a condition of competing for Federal contracts. This is simply shocking. It amounts to intentionally injecting political considerations into the Federal contracting process. What possible good can come from linking political information to a process which must be grounded solely and unequivocally on providing the very best value to American taxpayers? The trust of the American people in the integrity of our Federal contract award process depends on ensuring that the government's ``best value'' determination is free from political bias. It is unfathomable that this administration would even consider a move that would inject politics into the process, or create a perception that politics is something to be considered in selecting the winners and losers among businesses vying for Federal contracts. In addition to threatening the integrity of the procurement process, the draft Executive Order would also chill the First Amendment rights of individuals to contribute to the political causes or candidates they choose. Were the President to issue such an order, undoubtedly we would see a chilling effect on political activity. Many contractors would fear that the success or viability of their business could be threatened if they support the causes or candidates opposed by the administration. If the collection of such data were required, American businesses would be forced to think twice before contributing to political candidates or causes. In true Orwellian fashion, the draft executive order suggests that the only way to keep politics out of the contracting process is to include political information with every contract offer. If the White House gets its way, Federal agencies would have to collect information about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of potential contractors before any contract could be awarded. This EO would be far reaching and would apply not only to contributions made by the contracting company but also to those made by its directors, officers, and affiliates. These requirements would also apply retroactively to contributions made two years before the submission of an offer. Just think about-- political donations made years before a contract is even contemplated would have to be shared with government officials. By contrast, my bill reaffirms the fundamental principle that federal contracts should be awarded free from political considerations and be based on the best value to the taxpayers. Specifically, the bill would prohibit a Federal agency from collecting the political information of contractors and their employees as part of any type of request for proposal in anticipation of any type of contract. It would prohibit the agency from using political information received from any source as a factor in the source selection decision process for new contracts, or in making decisions related to modifications or extensions of existing contracts; and prohibit databases designed to be used by contracting officers to determine the responsibility of bidders from including political information, except for information on contractors' violations already permitted by law. Whether or not a prospective contractor agrees with the political views of this or any other administration should be completely irrelevant. Businesses that have supported conservative causes or whose directors have contributed to Republican candidates should not have to fear that bidding for Federal work would be a waste of their effort. Similarly, in the next Republican administration, contributors to Democratic causes and candidates should not be intimidated from competing for contracts. The result of such considerations would be less competition for Federal contracts and thus higher prices for goods and services procured by the Federal Government. The President and the Federal contracting system must not discourage businesses from competing for government contracts. At a time when the budget is under severe constraints, the administration should be seeking to expand the pool of bidders, not shrink it. In April, 27 Senators wrote to the President to express our opposition to this ill-conceived proposal. We pointed out that ``political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration. No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government contract. And no American should have to worry about whether his or her political activities or support will affect the ability to get or keep a federal contract * * *'' I also joined three other colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the President in May stressing the Executive Order's impact on the Federal contracting process and the already stretched-thin Federal acquisition workforce. I have not received a response to either letter. It simply doesn't pass the straight face test for this administration to suggest that this dramatic change in federal contracting is needed to remove politics from the contracting process. In fact, even the administration's chief procurement official recently admitted at a House hearing that there was no evidence of any problem of political corruption in the contracting process that would warrant correction with this type of new Executive Order. The reality is just the opposite: requiring disclosure of one's political activities and leanings as part of that process would likely ensure that politics would play a role in the award of federal contracts. If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements also apply to organizations receiving Federal grants? In fact, campaign contributions to candidates and political committees already are required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission, and with a click of a mouse, can be viewed on FEC.gov. Americans should get the best value in the marketplace and not a partisan policy that stifles First Amendment rights, politicizes the contracting process, and reduces competition in Federal contracting. I am pleased to note that my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, and Sam Graves agree. Today they have introduced an identical measure in that chamber. And last night, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would prohibit Federal agencies from requiring contractors to reveal contributions to political campaigns. Keep politics out of Federal contracting. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kohl. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks. The Federal Government, through the 21st Century Truck Partnership, has for some years provided funding to conduct research and development for the modernization of this industry, in association with private industry partners. Despite the significant potential benefits of hybrid trucks, however, research in this area was eliminated recently to focus on passenger vehicles. This decision was shortsighted. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are again being hard hit by increases in the price of diesel fuel. Given that our nation relies upon the trucking industry to keep our economy running by providing timely delivery of food, industrial products, and raw materials, we must develop alternatives that make the industry less susceptible to dramatic changes in oil prices. Hybrid power technologies offer tremendous promise of reducing this critical industry's dependence on oil. Trucks consume large amounts of imported fuels. Successfully transitioning trucks to hybrid power technology will reduce our Nation's oil consumption and improve our energy security. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act directs the Department of Energy to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. Current hybrid technology works well for cars that can be made with lightweight materials and travel short distances. Trucks need to be constructed with heavy materials commensurate with the heavy loads they carry and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel relatively long distances between charges. Thus advances in battery and other technologies are needed to make plug-in trucks commercially viable and will require more advanced technology than is required for passenger cars. Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data, and make performance comparisons with traditional trucks. Recipients who show promise in phase one will be invited to enter into phase two where they must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. The bill will also sponsor two smaller programs to deal with drive-train issues and the impact of the wide use of plug-in hybrid technology on the electrical grid. In total, the bill authorizes the expenditure of $16 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. We need a comprehensive approach to modernize commercial transportation in the 21st century. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kohl. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks. The Federal Government, through the 21st Century Truck Partnership, has for some years provided funding to conduct research and development for the modernization of this industry, in association with private industry partners. Despite the significant potential benefits of hybrid trucks, however, research in this area was eliminated recently to focus on passenger vehicles. This decision was shortsighted. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are again being hard hit by increases in the price of diesel fuel. Given that our nation relies upon the trucking industry to keep our economy running by providing timely delivery of food, industrial products, and raw materials, we must develop alternatives that make the industry less susceptible to dramatic changes in oil prices. Hybrid power technologies offer tremendous promise of reducing this critical industry's dependence on oil. Trucks consume large amounts of imported fuels. Successfully transitioning trucks to hybrid power technology will reduce our Nation's oil consumption and improve our energy security. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act directs the Department of Energy to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. Current hybrid technology works well for cars that can be made with lightweight materials and travel short distances. Trucks need to be constructed with heavy materials commensurate with the heavy loads they carry and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel relatively long distances between charges. Thus advances in battery and other technologies are needed to make plug-in trucks commercially viable and will require more advanced technology than is required for passenger cars. Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data, and make performance comparisons with traditional trucks. Recipients who show promise in phase one will be invited to enter into phase two where they must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. The bill will also sponsor two smaller programs to deal with drive-train issues and the impact of the wide use of plug-in hybrid technology on the electrical grid. In total, the bill authorizes the expenditure of $16 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. We need a comprehensive approach to modernize commercial transportation in the 21st century. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill extends important programs that help to protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage. The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, including the American Waterways Operators, National Association of Boating Law Administrators, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Association of Marina Industries, National Boating Federation, and National Marine Manufacturers Association. The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2010, United States ports logged 57,600 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged cargo vessels, bringing 11 million shipping containers to our shores. Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located. Our seaports operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. As the air cargo plot emanating from Yemen last fall demonstrated, terrorists remain committed to exploiting commercial shipments as a way of moving explosives or weapons of mass destruction. Maritime shipping containers are a special source of concern. A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several hundred containers, could be used to conceal a dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st century Trojan horse. The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship a weapon or explosive across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port. And the contents of such a container don't have to be something as complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism. I have had the opportunity to visit seaports and, as one examines some of the Nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' In February, while touring the Port of Miami and Port Everglades with the Coast Guard, I witnessed firsthand the large and sprawling urban populations, cruise ship docks, container terminals, and bulk fuel facilities that are situated around these ports. At other locations, there are large sports stadiums and ferries operating nearby as well. Add up these factors, and one realizes immediately the death and destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port. Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 people and wounded hundreds more. To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize these SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be successful the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination. The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including offering voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts. The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have improved the security of our ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $300 million per year, as included in the President's budget, is lower than the current $400 million authorization in recognition of the severe budget constraints we face. To address concerns expressed by port authorities and terminal operators from across the country, the bill places deadlines on the Department of Homeland Security to ensure a timely response is provided to port security grant applications, extensions, and cost-share waiver requests. In addition to continuing and improving critical port security programs, the bill also would strengthen the America's Waterway Watch Program, which promotes voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway. Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. In addition, this legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy next-generation sensors. This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x- ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with little additional security benefit. Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure cargo entering the U.S. is safe. This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x- raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective and feasible. The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 will help us to continue an effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of goods on which our economy depends. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill extends important programs that help to protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage. The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, including the American Waterways Operators, National Association of Boating Law Administrators, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Association of Marina Industries, National Boating Federation, and National Marine Manufacturers Association. The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2010, United States ports logged 57,600 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged cargo vessels, bringing 11 million shipping containers to our shores. Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located. Our seaports operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. As the air cargo plot emanating from Yemen last fall demonstrated, terrorists remain committed to exploiting commercial shipments as a way of moving explosives or weapons of mass destruction. Maritime shipping containers are a special source of concern. A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several hundred containers, could be used to conceal a dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st century Trojan horse. The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship a weapon or explosive across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port. And the contents of such a container don't have to be something as complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism. I have had the opportunity to visit seaports and, as one examines some of the Nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' In February, while touring the Port of Miami and Port Everglades with the Coast Guard, I witnessed firsthand the large and sprawling urban populations, cruise ship docks, container terminals, and bulk fuel facilities that are situated around these ports. At other locations, there are large sports stadiums and ferries operating nearby as well. Add up these factors, and one realizes immediately the death and destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port. Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 people and wounded hundreds more. To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize these SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be successful the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination. The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including offering voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts. The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have improved the security of our ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $300 million per year, as included in the President's budget, is lower than the current $400 million authorization in recognition of the severe budget constraints we face. To address concerns expressed by port authorities and terminal operators from across the country, the bill places deadlines on the Department of Homeland Security to ensure a timely response is provided to port security grant applications, extensions, and cost-share waiver requests. In addition to continuing and improving critical port security programs, the bill also would strengthen the America's Waterway Watch Program, which promotes voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway. Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. In addition, this legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy next-generation sensors. This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x- ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with little additional security benefit. Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure cargo entering the U.S. is safe. This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x- raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective and feasible. The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 will help us to continue an effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of goods on which our economy depends. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more management and oversight of major information technology, IT, investments across the federal government. In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems. Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic Records Archive initiative. Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times more than originally planned. We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars. Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil. Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost- estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to the census price tag. Three billion! The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for managing large IT projects. Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that, when federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance. For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a half. For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions. As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and Congressional oversight of the projects. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips. The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed. If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled. On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key milestones, and lifecycle costs. Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of dollars or endanger agency missions. If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the project until it is brought into compliance. If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk lists. I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more management and oversight of major information technology, IT, investments across the federal government. In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems. Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic Records Archive initiative. Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times more than originally planned. We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars. Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil. Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost- estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to the census price tag. Three billion! The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for managing large IT projects. Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that, when federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance. For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a half. For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions. As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and Congressional oversight of the projects. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips. The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed. If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled. On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key milestones, and lifecycle costs. Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of dollars or endanger agency missions. If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the project until it is brought into compliance. If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk lists. I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Akaka in introducing the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011-- Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements. This bill would help to improve inadequate security at too many of our Federal buildings. As a Nation, we have learned several hard truths. Terrorists are intent on attacking the United States, and their tactics continue to evolve. The early identification of a security gap can save countless lives if we act promptly to close it. There is no substitute for pre- emptive action to detect, disrupt, and defend against terrorist plots. As we remember the lives lost when terrorists attacked the United States in 2001, we must avoid complacency. Our country's defenses must be nimble, multi-layered, informed by timely intelligence and coordinated across multiple agencies. This is difficult work, requiring painstaking attention to detail and an unwavering focus. We must remain vigilant about the threats we face. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates there are significant security problems at Federal buildings where thousands of employees serve thousands more of our citizens every work day. The Federal Protective Service, FPS, is charged with securing nearly 9,000 Federal facilities and protecting the government employees who work in them, and the Americans who use them to access vital services. But, independent investigations by the Government Accountability Office, at the request of our Committee, and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General have documented serious and systemic security flaws within the operations of the FPS. These lapses place Federal employees and private citizens at risk. In April and May of 2009, for example, GAO's undercover investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 Federal office buildings. Every single building GAO targeted was breached--a perfect record of security failure. At each facility, concealed bomb components passed through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. Once inside, the covert GAO investigators were able to assemble the simulated explosive devices without interruption. A July 2009 GAO report documented training flaws for FPS contract guards, some of whom failed to receive mandatory training on the operation of metal detectors and x-ray equipment. Other contract guards were deficient in key certifications such as CPR, First Aid, and firearms training. All told, GAO found that 62 percent of the FPS contract guards it reviewed lacked valid certifications in one or more of these areas. This review also found that FPS did little to ensure compliance with rules and regulations and failed to conduct inspections of guard posts after regular business hours. When GAO investigators tested these posts, they found some guards sleeping on an overnight shift. In another example, an inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine on its conveyor belt. That guard was fired, but he ultimately won a lawsuit against the FPS because the agency could not document that he had received required training on the machine. A few months earlier, in April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General also found critical failings in the FPS contract guard program. The Inspector General's recommendations included many concrete steps to strengthen contract guard performance, such as improving the award and management of contracts and increasing the amount of training and number of compliance inspections. These reports demonstrate that American taxpayers are simply not receiving the security they have paid for and that they expect FPS to provide. The reports also show the vulnerabilities facing Federal employees and federal infrastructure because of lax security. While shining a light on these failings in multiple hearings, our Committee pressed FPS to take action to close these security gaps. Although some tentative steps have been taken by FPS, we can no longer wait for OMB and DHS to implement the absolutely critical security measures necessary to help protect our Federal buildings, our Federal employees, and the American public. The legislation that I introduce today, with Senators Lieberman and Akaka, would help close these security gaps at our Federal buildings. First, the bill would codify the Interagency Security Committee, which was established by Executive Order 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, to increase security standards at Federal facilities. The ISC, comprised of representatives from agencies across the government, would establish risk-based performance standards for the security of Federal buildings. FPS would then enforce these requirements based on the risk tier assigned the facility by the ISC. Prior reports clearly demonstrate that FPS lacks authority to require tenant agencies of a Federal facility to comply with recommended security countermeasures. For example, although FPS may ask tenant agencies to purchase or repair security equipment like cameras and x-ray machines, these tenant agencies can refuse to purchase or repair the equipment based on cost. Since FPS has no enforcement mechanism, these machines are not upgraded, or remain inoperable, and security suffers. With so much at stake, tenant agencies should not be able to effectively overrule the security experts on the ISC and at FPS. To address this problem, our legislation would provide FPS the authority needed to mandate the implementation of security measures at a facility. FPS also would have the authority to inspect Federal facilities to enforce compliance. The bill would allow the FPS Director to charge additional fees if tenant agencies fail to comply with applicable security standards. In such cases, the Secretary also must notify Congress of the non- compliant facilities. Our bill also would require an independent analysis of FPS's long- term staffing needs. The government has an obligation to protect our Nation's security, and our Federal buildings are targets for violence. This legislation would provide FPS with stronger authority to improve security at our Federal buildings. The American public that relies on these facilities and the Federal employees who work in them deserve better and more reliable protection.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Akaka in introducing the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011-- Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements. This bill would help to improve inadequate security at too many of our Federal buildings. As a Nation, we have learned several hard truths. Terrorists are intent on attacking the United States, and their tactics continue to evolve. The early identification of a security gap can save countless lives if we act promptly to close it. There is no substitute for pre- emptive action to detect, disrupt, and defend against terrorist plots. As we remember the lives lost when terrorists attacked the United States in 2001, we must avoid complacency. Our country's defenses must be nimble, multi-layered, informed by timely intelligence and coordinated across multiple agencies. This is difficult work, requiring painstaking attention to detail and an unwavering focus. We must remain vigilant about the threats we face. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates there are significant security problems at Federal buildings where thousands of employees serve thousands more of our citizens every work day. The Federal Protective Service, FPS, is charged with securing nearly 9,000 Federal facilities and protecting the government employees who work in them, and the Americans who use them to access vital services. But, independent investigations by the Government Accountability Office, at the request of our Committee, and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General have documented serious and systemic security flaws within the operations of the FPS. These lapses place Federal employees and private citizens at risk. In April and May of 2009, for example, GAO's undercover investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 Federal office buildings. Every single building GAO targeted was breached--a perfect record of security failure. At each facility, concealed bomb components passed through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. Once inside, the covert GAO investigators were able to assemble the simulated explosive devices without interruption. A July 2009 GAO report documented training flaws for FPS contract guards, some of whom failed to receive mandatory training on the operation of metal detectors and x-ray equipment. Other contract guards were deficient in key certifications such as CPR, First Aid, and firearms training. All told, GAO found that 62 percent of the FPS contract guards it reviewed lacked valid certifications in one or more of these areas. This review also found that FPS did little to ensure compliance with rules and regulations and failed to conduct inspections of guard posts after regular business hours. When GAO investigators tested these posts, they found some guards sleeping on an overnight shift. In another example, an inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine on its conveyor belt. That guard was fired, but he ultimately won a lawsuit against the FPS because the agency could not document that he had received required training on the machine. A few months earlier, in April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General also found critical failings in the FPS contract guard program. The Inspector General's recommendations included many concrete steps to strengthen contract guard performance, such as improving the award and management of contracts and increasing the amount of training and number of compliance inspections. These reports demonstrate that American taxpayers are simply not receiving the security they have paid for and that they expect FPS to provide. The reports also show the vulnerabilities facing Federal employees and federal infrastructure because of lax security. While shining a light on these failings in multiple hearings, our Committee pressed FPS to take action to close these security gaps. Although some tentative steps have been taken by FPS, we can no longer wait for OMB and DHS to implement the absolutely critical security measures necessary to help protect our Federal buildings, our Federal employees, and the American public. The legislation that I introduce today, with Senators Lieberman and Akaka, would help close these security gaps at our Federal buildings. First, the bill would codify the Interagency Security Committee, which was established by Executive Order 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, to increase security standards at Federal facilities. The ISC, comprised of representatives from agencies across the government, would establish risk-based performance standards for the security of Federal buildings. FPS would then enforce these requirements based on the risk tier assigned the facility by the ISC. Prior reports clearly demonstrate that FPS lacks authority to require tenant agencies of a Federal facility to comply with recommended security countermeasures. For example, although FPS may ask tenant agencies to purchase or repair security equipment like cameras and x-ray machines, these tenant agencies can refuse to purchase or repair the equipment based on cost. Since FPS has no enforcement mechanism, these machines are not upgraded, or remain inoperable, and security suffers. With so much at stake, tenant agencies should not be able to effectively overrule the security experts on the ISC and at FPS. To address this problem, our legislation would provide FPS the authority needed to mandate the implementation of security measures at a facility. FPS also would have the authority to inspect Federal facilities to enforce compliance. The bill would allow the FPS Director to charge additional fees if tenant agencies fail to comply with applicable security standards. In such cases, the Secretary also must notify Congress of the non- compliant facilities. Our bill also would require an independent analysis of FPS's long- term staffing needs. The government has an obligation to protect our Nation's security, and our Federal buildings are targets for violence. This legislation would provide FPS with stronger authority to improve security at our Federal buildings. The American public that relies on these facilities and the Federal employees who work in them deserve better and more reliable protection.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system. The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011, S. 761, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka and McCaskill, would create a Federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience. The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011, S. 762, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka, McCaskill and Brown of Massachusetts, would provide much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and better management of the federal acquisition workforce. The Federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2010, acquisition spending by the federal government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $535 billion. The necessary costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will continue to strain the acquisition system in the years ahead. This unprecedented level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting. The Secure Border Initiative Network, the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census, and the Marine Presidential Helicopter programs are among recent, notorious and costly acquisition failures, which we can ill afford. These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes. As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize the actions the Administration has taken recently to improve federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the 110th Congress. But, no matter how many laws we pass or guidance documents OMB issues, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system ultimately depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce. While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. And with roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire by 2018, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce are becoming increasingly acute. A well- trained and adequately sized acquisition workforce is critical to managing and overseeing federal spending and the increasingly complex procurements of services and goods. The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today are designed to address these important long-term goals. The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act would create a centrally managed, Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the- job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students and retain our best government employees who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service. Compared to the several existing, agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number; that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives. Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the Federal Government's entire contract spending, and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is evident that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who understand government-wide needs and perspectives and are able to operate effectively outside of the traditional, single-agency environment. Specifically, the Acquisition Management Fellows Program would include one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost- estimating, formation and post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts. Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required, non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant. In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than 1 year for each year a participant is in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements. Our second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act, would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce. The FAI has remained largely underutilized due to a lack of organizational clarity, the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, and its intermittent use by a few Federal agencies. The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that FAI, through its Board of Directors, report directly to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator, and report directly to the OFPP Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce; all existing civilian agency training programs follow guidelines issued by OFPP, which would ensure consistent training standards necessary to develop uniform core competencies; and the OFPP Administrator report annually to Congressional committees of jurisdiction projected FAI budget needs and expense plans to fulfill its statutory mandate. With respect to its core government-wide functions, FAI would be required to provide and keep current government-wide training standards and certification requirements including ensuring effective agency implementation of government-wide training and certification standards; analyzing the curriculum to ascertain if all certification competencies are covered, or if adjustments are necessary; developing career-path information for certified professionals to encourage retention in government positions; and coordinating with the Office of Personnel Management for human capital efforts. The administration has identified acquisition workforce development as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and contract performance. While I fully agree with this goal, we need specific and concrete action to solve this problem. Our legislation would prompt the sustained effort necessary to rebuild the acquisition workforce. While this will take time and investment, I am confident this is a wise investment that will yield substantial returns. Just think about it: if our better-trained acquisition professionals can prevent one failed procurement, it can save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. If they can avoid overpaying one percent of our contract spending, it will save the taxpayer more than five billion dollars each year. The numbers speak for themselves. The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act are critically needed and both enjoy bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system. The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011, S. 761, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka and McCaskill, would create a Federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience. The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011, S. 762, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka, McCaskill and Brown of Massachusetts, would provide much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and better management of the federal acquisition workforce. The Federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2010, acquisition spending by the federal government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $535 billion. The necessary costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will continue to strain the acquisition system in the years ahead. This unprecedented level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting. The Secure Border Initiative Network, the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census, and the Marine Presidential Helicopter programs are among recent, notorious and costly acquisition failures, which we can ill afford. These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes. As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize the actions the Administration has taken recently to improve federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the 110th Congress. But, no matter how many laws we pass or guidance documents OMB issues, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system ultimately depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce. While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. And with roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire by 2018, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce are becoming increasingly acute. A well- trained and adequately sized acquisition workforce is critical to managing and overseeing federal spending and the increasingly complex procurements of services and goods. The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today are designed to address these important long-term goals. The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act would create a centrally managed, Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the- job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students and retain our best government employees who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service. Compared to the several existing, agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number; that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives. Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the Federal Government's entire contract spending, and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is evident that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who understand government-wide needs and perspectives and are able to operate effectively outside of the traditional, single-agency environment. Specifically, the Acquisition Management Fellows Program would include one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost- estimating, formation and post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts. Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required, non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant. In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than 1 year for each year a participant is in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements. Our second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act, would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce. The FAI has remained largely underutilized due to a lack of organizational clarity, the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, and its intermittent use by a few Federal agencies. The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that FAI, through its Board of Directors, report directly to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator, and report directly to the OFPP Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce; all existing civilian agency training programs follow guidelines issued by OFPP, which would ensure consistent training standards necessary to develop uniform core competencies; and the OFPP Administrator report annually to Congressional committees of jurisdiction projected FAI budget needs and expense plans to fulfill its statutory mandate. With respect to its core government-wide functions, FAI would be required to provide and keep current government-wide training standards and certification requirements including ensuring effective agency implementation of government-wide training and certification standards; analyzing the curriculum to ascertain if all certification competencies are covered, or if adjustments are necessary; developing career-path information for certified professionals to encourage retention in government positions; and coordinating with the Office of Personnel Management for human capital efforts. The administration has identified acquisition workforce development as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and contract performance. While I fully agree with this goal, we need specific and concrete action to solve this problem. Our legislation would prompt the sustained effort necessary to rebuild the acquisition workforce. While this will take time and investment, I am confident this is a wise investment that will yield substantial returns. Just think about it: if our better-trained acquisition professionals can prevent one failed procurement, it can save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. If they can avoid overpaying one percent of our contract spending, it will save the taxpayer more than five billion dollars each year. The numbers speak for themselves. The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act are critically needed and both enjoy bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing National Child Abuse Prevention Month. I am honored to be joined by an advocate for children, Senator Kerry, in turning a spotlight on the issue of child abuse and neglect in this country. Senator Kerry and I share a common belief that children should be valued and nurtured by both their families and all of us. The effort to address child abuse transcends ideological and partisan lines. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue--this is an American issue--one that we can't wish away, but that we must face head on and work to eradicate. Abuse of children occurs in all segments of our society, in rural, suburban, and urban areas and among all racial, ethnic, and income groups. According to the 2009 Child Maltreatment Study compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, during 2009, an estimated 702,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,770 children died as a result. Last year I became aware of yet another tragic case of child abuse. Maine was mourning the death of 15-month old Damien Lynn. Autopsy reports show that little Damien had broken bones and ribs, head and abdominal injuries, and a human bite mark on his right arm. This year the former boyfriend of Damien's mother will face the consequences of his actions, and I am proud to introduce this resolution again in Damien's memory. The time has come for Americans to unite in an all-out effort to eradicate child abuse. National Child Abuse Prevention Month is an opportunity for communities across the country to keep children safe, provide the support families need to stay together, and raise children and youth to be happy, secure, and stable adults. To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, ``You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members.'' This resolution is sad commentary that we have to do more to protect those who are in the dawn of life, the most vulnerable among us, our children.