Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2015. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that harms the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighters and emergency service personnel. For years, local and State governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders. Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders the ability of departments to administer plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive benefits. My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow an election to treat LOSAPs as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. These two changes will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing Federal spending. Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many states that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the Federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to recruit more easily and retain personnel. These men and women, our local first responders, are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities. These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Schumer, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2015. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that harms the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighters and emergency service personnel. For years, local and State governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders. Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders the ability of departments to administer plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive benefits. My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow an election to treat LOSAPs as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. These two changes will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing Federal spending. Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many states that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the Federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to recruit more easily and retain personnel. These men and women, our local first responders, are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities. These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Schumer, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it doesn't surprise me that there are both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators who are extremely uncomfortable with what the President did last November because it is so outside of the scope of his authority as President that I think that most of my colleagues, in their hearts, on the other side of the aisle must have qualms and misgivings about what the President did. In fact, I would almost guarantee that if a Republican President had exceeded his Executive authority to that degree, there would have been an uproar. So I think this is important in terms of our protecting the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so wisely incorporated into the Constitution. And I do believe there are even more Senators on the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but who really do have qualms about it even if they agree with the policy. We need to distinguish between the policy--whether or not some Members agree with the policy; some Members don't--but the question is, Does the President's frustration with Congress's failure to pass immigration reform allow him to unilaterally write the law? The Senator from Texas is a former Supreme Court justice in Texas, and through the Chair I would pose that question to him.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, who has a fine legal mind and has served on the Texas Supreme Court, is exactly right. Moreover, I wish to read what President Obama himself said about the very point the Senator from Texas made about the oath when we held up our right hand and were sworn into this body, and the oath the President took when he became President. Here is what the President said in July 2011: I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and to change the laws on my own . . . But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written. President Obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to respond to the Senator from Texas, I hope that will not happen. I have put forth a way forward for this body. I want to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded throughout the fiscal year. I want to ensure that we do not overturn the 2012 DACA Executive order, which is narrow enough that it does not raise the very troubling issues the Senator from Texas has so eloquently outlined. But I do believe it is important for each of us to take a stand against the President's overreach here. This is important. This matters. It is our job to protect the Constitution and to uphold our role, and that is what I am trying to do here--accomplish those three goals--and that is what the Senator from Texas is discussing.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to speak on an amendment which I had hoped would provide a framework that would accomplish three goals: First, to provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security so that it could perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our country; Second, to put the Senate on record as opposing the President's extraordinarily broad immigration actions issued by Executive order in November of 2014; And, third, to ensure that individuals who were brought to this country as children and qualify for treatment under the June 2012 Executive order on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--the so- called DREAMers that Senator Durbin has just spoken of--could continue to benefit under that program. I am very pleased that it looks like we are moving forward on a bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We had a very strong vote on that yesterday. Indeed, I have not heard a single Senator on either side of the aisle say that we should shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Each of us recognizes its vital mission. As someone who served as the chairman or ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for a decade, I certainly understand how vital the mission of this Department is. I am keenly aware, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, of the threats against our country and the risks that we face from those who would do us harm. At the same time, as members of the legislative branch, we have an obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe that the President has exceeded his grant of Executive authority under the Constitution in a way that would undermine the separation of powers doctrine. I wish to read what a constitutional scholar has said about the President's Executive order and how far the President could or could not go. This is what this constitutional scholar says: Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. Who was that constitutional scholar? It was the President of the United States, Barack Obama. He said this in September of 2013. President Obama got it right back then. I believe that he was within the scope of his Executive authority when he issued the 2012 Executive orders that created DACA, which allowed for the DREAMers to stay here. Let me also make clear that I am a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. While I was disappointed that immigration reform legislation of some sort did not become law when we passed it a few years ago, I reject the notion that its failure can serve as justification for the actions taken by the President last November. He simply cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress has refused to pass regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is central to our constitutional framework. That is really what this debate is about. It is about the proper constitutional constraints on unilateral Executive action. It happens to be an Executive action that deals with immigration, but it could be an Executive action on any other issue. That is why it is important that we draw those lines. Indeed, the legislation I proposed, which we will be voting on at some point, is fully consistent with the court ruling in Texas, which my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, is very familiar with and knows much more about than I do. But it is fully consistent with that ruling which lets stand the 2012 Executive order but stayed the implementation of the 2014 Executive order. There is a difference. Now, I consider the Senator from Illinois to be an excellent Senator and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis of my amendment. I know that he acts in good faith. But there are either misunderstandings or misinterpretations or just plain disagreements. So I would like to go through some of the points that he has made about my amendment. One of the chief objections of the Senator from Illinois to my bill is that it strikes provisions of the November 2014 immigration action that would expand--that is the key word; it would expand--the 2012 DACA Program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that program. He talks about expanding the age limit, for example. Now, let's take a look at exactly what the criteria are for DREAMers under the 2012 Executive order. These are criteria that were praised by my friend from Illinois and numerous other Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle when the President issued his Executive order. I, too, agree with these criteria. In order to qualify, an individual has to have come to the United States under the age of 16, has to have continually resided in the United States for at least 5 years preceding the date of this memorandum, and has to be present on the date of the June 15, 2012, memorandum. The individual has to be currently either in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate or has to be an honorably discharged member of the Coast Guard or our military. In addition, the individual has to have a pretty good record. The person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. And they cannot be above the age of 30. These are reasonable criteria that the President came up with. Frankly, I am not enthralled with the one that allows for multiple misdemeanors, and the Executive order also states that the individual cannot have multiple misdemeanors. The form that is used by DHS says the individual can have up to three misdemeanors. I personally would require an absolutely clean record. But these are reasonable criteria, and these are not changed by the Collins bill in any way. The 2012 Executive order stands. So the argument of my friend from Illinois is focused on the fact that he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other categories of individuals, and that is what the November 2014 immigration action does. It has nothing to do with the status of the individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as a result of the 2012 Executive order. My amendment protects the 2012 Executive order and those who benefited from it. So we have a sincere disagreement over what is appropriate to be done by Executive action and what needs to be done by legislation. Even though I support many of the policies that are in the 2014 Executive order, I just don't think the President can unilaterally proclaim those changes.

Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator's question is a brief one, I will be very happy to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the point made by the Senator from Illinois. The point is that the President's 2014 Executive order goes far beyond those who would ``age out,'' in his words; it adds entirely new categories of people. In fact, the estimates are that some 5 million undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 Executive order. Should the President unilaterally be allowed to make that kind of Executive order, that kind of change in our immigration law? The court has said no, and I believe the court is right about that. In fact, when these criteria were issued in 2012, the Senator from Illinois said in a press release as recently as June of last year, before the November Executive order, that this was a smart and lawful approach. So the answer is, how do you draw the line, and what is the appropriate role of the executive branch vis-a-vis the legislative branch? And I say that as someone who believes and hopes that later this year we will take up a comprehensive immigration bill, and I hope to be able to support it again. But this is an issue of what is the proper role of Congress vis-a-vis the President under our constitutional system. And I was not surprised when the Texas court kept the 2012 Executive order but blocked the 2014 Executive order. There is another issue the Senator from Illinois has raised that I think is a very important point to make. He has said that my bill could bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country through the 2012 Executive order from renewing their status. That is simply not how I read the Executive order, and I think it is very clear. Let's look at the 2012 Executive order. This is what it says. This is what Janet Napolitano talked about in ``exercising prosecutorial discretion.'' The June 15, 2012, DACA Executive order grants deferred action ``for a period of two years''--here are the key words--``subject to renewal.'' So there is nothing in my amendment that prevents children and young adults--people up to age 30--from getting a renewal of the deferred status that they have been granted through this Executive order. It says it right there: ``subject to renewal.'' But let's look further at the data. This is on DHS's Web site. According to the data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the government has renewed more than 148,000 2012 applications as of the first quarter of this fiscal year, and many of them were completed before the November 2014 Executive orders were even issued. So there is nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those individuals who received this status. It is very clear--148,000 of them have had their applications renewed. The Senator from Illinois has said that I would prevent DHS from issuing a memorandum that allows for the renewal. There is no need for such a memorandum; otherwise, 148,000 of these young people would not have been able to get a renewal--and before the 2014 Executive order was even issued. The Senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very legality of the 2012 DACA order because it is a ``very similar program to the 2014 Executive action.'' To restate my basic point, my bill does not affect the 2012 DACA Program. It is substantially different from the 2014 Executive order. In fact, if you read the language of the 2014 Executive order, it embraces that distinction. It specifically states that it does not rescind or supersede the 2012 DACA order. Let me say that again. The 2014 Executive order specifically states that it does not rescind or supersede the Executive order that was issued in 2012. Instead, it says it seeks to supplement or amend it.

Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could respond to the senior Senator from Texas, he raises an excellent point. I would bring up a quote that is just one of those 22 quotes in which the President has said over and over again that he would like to do more on immigration, that he was very disappointed the House didn't take up the comprehensive immigration bill but that his hands were tied. I believe at one point he even said, ``I am not a king.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am familiar with the issue the Senator from Texas refers to, and I kept a provision included in the bill that we will be voting on at some point, on that issue. It seems to me, if you are a convicted sex offender, why do we want you in this country? The irony is that just this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on sex trafficking, and we heard heartbreaking stories of very young girls who had been abused by men, who had been taken from State to State, coerced into prostitution. I do not want those individuals, if they come from another country, to be allowed to stay here. All 20 of the women of the Senate requested this hearing from the Judiciary Committee, and the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human trafficking. We are trying to send a message that these individuals should be a high priority for deportation, but I want to make it clear that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill--and, frankly, it is a completely specious argument--there is nothing in my bill that deprives the Department of Homeland Security of the authority it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country--those, for example, who are terrorists or belong to gangs or pose some sort of public safety or national security threat. Indeed, the public safety threat is big enough to cover the people we are talking about, but we think they merit special mention in our bill. Why would we want to keep someone in our country who is deportable, who is a sex offender, who has been convicted of child molestation or domestic violence? It makes no sense.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his contributions to this very important debate. I believe he helped to clarify a lot of important issues that I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will consider as they cast their votes. I am for comprehensive immigration reform. I have voted that way. That is not what this is about. My bill simply prevents the executive branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical exceptions from the law for whole classes of people. That power belongs to Congress. Whether Congress was wrong or whether Congress was right, it does not give the President the authority to write the law on his own, and that is what he has done with his November 2014 Executive order. I wish to make two other points before I close. The first point is there is nothing in my legislation that in any way undoes the more limited 2012 Executive order that applies to the DREAMers--nothing. It doesn't prevent them from being renewed nor does it take away their status. There is nothing that changes that Executive order. The first version of the House bill did, and I opposed that provision and it is not in my bill. The second point I will make is that this debate is not about immigration. It really is about the power of the President versus the powers delineated in our Constitution for Congress and the judicial branch. I will close, once again, with President Obama's own words, because he got it right back in September of 2013. He said: Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to those who are undocumented . . . What we can do is to carve out the DREAM Act-- And that is what he did with his 2012 Executive order. saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome . . . But if we start broadening that-- Which is exactly what he did in his 2014 Executive order. then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. That is why the court stayed the implementation of the 2014 Executive order. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2 day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait eleven days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by a broad coalition of organizations, including the AARP, the National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2 day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait eleven days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by a broad coalition of organizations, including the AARP, the National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier meals to students throughout the country. School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program every school day. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on household income. The food served at schools to these children affects their health and well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of the day at school instead of at home. At the same time, too many of our children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes and other chronic diseases. These conditions may have a lifelong effect on their health as they grow to adulthood. In response to concerns about the health of our children, our schools have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working diligently to meet the new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and meatloaf that she makes fresh. Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive, inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the tools and the infrastructure necessary beyond reheating and holding food for meal service. To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half, 48 percent, of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. The median equipment need per school is $45,000. Even more costly would be making the required changes to infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need more ventilation. Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the $111,000 in grants that the USDA awarded Maine during the last two fiscal years for new equipment. Our bill authorizes loan guarantee assistance and grants for school equipment and infrastructure improvements, thereby helping food service personnel meet nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage infrastructure. Second, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to give school administrators and food service directors the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality, durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and stoves. Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop and administer training and technical assistance, including online programs. We need to start our school children off on the right food every day. If they are going to be able to learn and compete, they need to be healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help us achieve that goal.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, in introducing the School Food Modernization Act to assist schools in providing healthier meals to students throughout the country. School meals play a vital role in the lives of our young people. More than 30 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program every school day. In Maine, 40 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on household income. The food served at schools to these children affects their health and well-being. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school. In fact, children often get their most nutritious meal of the day at school instead of at home. At the same time, too many of our children are at risk of serious disease. One-third of the children in this country are overweight or obese, which increases their risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes and other chronic diseases. These conditions may have a lifelong effect on their health as they grow to adulthood. In response to concerns about the health of our children, our schools have stepped up to the plate. Nationwide, schools are working diligently to meet the new U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and serve healthier meals. For example, in the New Sweden Consolidated School in Aroostook County, ME, food service manager Melanie Lagasse prepares meals from scratch instead of opening cans or pushing a defrost button. The school's 64 students, ranging from preschool to eighth grade, have grown to relish the chicken stew, baked fish, and meatloaf that she makes fresh. Many schools, however, lack the right tools for preparing meals rich in fresh ingredients and must rely on workarounds that are expensive, inefficient, and unsustainable. Schools built decades ago lack the tools and the infrastructure necessary beyond reheating and holding food for meal service. To serve healthier meals to their students, 99 percent of Maine school districts need at least one piece of equipment and almost half, 48 percent, of districts need kitchen infrastructure upgrades. The median equipment need per school is $45,000. Even more costly would be making the required changes to infrastructure. Forty-eight percent of Maine schools need some kind of infrastructure change to serve healthy meals. For example, 41 percent of schools need more physical space, 22 percent need more electrical capacity, 21 percent need more plumbing capacity, and 19 percent need more ventilation. Add the equipment costs together with the infrastructure costs and it is estimated that overall, $58.8 million would be needed just in Maine to serve healthy meals to all of our students. That far exceeds the $111,000 in grants that the USDA awarded Maine during the last two fiscal years for new equipment. Our bill authorizes loan guarantee assistance and grants for school equipment and infrastructure improvements, thereby helping food service personnel meet nutrition standards. First, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment to prepare and serve healthier, more nutritious meals to students. School administrators and other eligible borrowers could obtain Federal guarantees for 80 percent of the loan value needed to construct, remodel, or expand their kitchens, dining, or food storage infrastructure. Second, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to give school administrators and food service directors the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality, durable kitchen equipment such as commercial ovens, steamers, and stoves. Finally, to aid school food service personnel in meeting the nutrition guidelines, the legislation would strengthen training and provide technical assistance by authorizing USDA to provide support on a competitive basis to highly qualified third-party trainers to develop and administer training and technical assistance, including online programs. We need to start our school children off on the right food every day. If they are going to be able to learn and compete, they need to be healthy and their minds and bodies fully nourished. This bill will help us achieve that goal.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on the individual, the family, and society. In addition to the human suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an estimated $226 billion a year, including $153 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom generation ages. Already our Nation's costliest disease, Alzheimer's is projected to cost more than $1.1 trillion if nothing is done to change its current trajectory. It is now estimated that nearly one in two of the baby boomers reaching age 85 will develop Alzheimer's. As a consequence, chances are that members of the baby boom generation will either be spending their golden years suffering with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways Alzheimer's has become the defining disease of this generation. If we are to prevent Alzheimer's from becoming the defining disease of the next generation, it is imperative that we dramatically increase our investment in Alzheimer's research. At a time when the United States is spending some $226 billion a year caring for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths of 1 percent of that amount--under $600 million a year--on research. This makes no sense. We currently spend $4.5 billion a year for cancer research, $3 billion a year for research on HIV-AIDS, and $2 billion for cardiovascular research--all investments that have paid dividends. Surely we can do more for Alzheimer's given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. Investments in research for other diseases have yielded tremendous results. We see that with cancer, with HIV/AIDS. Patients have access to new treatments, and death rates for some of these diseases are decreasing. At the same time, mortality due to Alzheimer's is escalating. Alzheimer's is one of our Nation's leading causes of death, with recent data revealing that each year more than 500,000 deaths are attributable to Alzheimer's and other dementia, 6 times the amount previously estimated. Moreover, Alzheimer's is the only one of our Nation's top 10 deadliest diseases without an effective means of prevention, treatment or a cure. Fortunately there is promising research that holds hope for Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and by investigating new therapeutic targets, but adequate funding is critical to achieve this promise. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease was authorized by the bipartisan National Alzheimer's Act, which I coauthored with then-Senator Evan Bayh. The national plan has as its primary goal to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by the year 2025. The chairman of the advisory council that was created by the act, Dr. Ronald Petersen of the Mayo Clinic, has testified before Congress that the United States should be devoting $2 billion a year at a minimum to Alzheimer's research in order to reach that goal. A dramatic increase in funding for Alzheimer's research will not just save lives, it will also save money. According to a report issued by the Alzheimer's Association last year, a Federal investment of $2 billion a year between now and the year 2025, as recommended by the experts on the Alzheimer's Advisory Council and the scientific community more broadly, would be recouped within the first 3 years after a treatment delaying the onset of Alzheimer's by just 5 years becomes available. I am therefore pleased to be introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Klobuchar, Mikulski, Warner, Durbin, and Stabenow, a resolution declaring that the goal of preventing and effectively treating Alzheimer's is an urgent national priority. In recognition of the fact that bold action and considerable increases in funding are necessary to meet that goal, our resolution states that the Senate will strive to double the amount of funding the United States spends on Alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2016 and that we will develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion over the next 5 years. Our bill is supported by a number of organizations including the Alzheimer's Association, UsAgainstAlzheimer's, the Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease--or the LEAD Coalition--and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these organizations be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we have to face the facts that if we do not invest in Alzheimer's research at the levels the experts tell us is necessary to develop effective treatments for this disease or perhaps a means of prevention or eventually a cure, this disease is going to continue to cause untold suffering not only for its victims but for its families, and it will bankrupt America 's health care system. I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. I want, in particular, to recognize my partner in this effort, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. The home of the Mayo Clinic is in her State. She has been stalwart in supporting the efforts to increase funding for Alzheimer's research. With that, I am very pleased to yield to my partner, Senator Klobuchar.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I wish to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Town of Woodstock, ME. Known today as a gateway to the rugged and beautiful Western Maine Mountains, Woodstock was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today. Woodstock's incorporation on Feb. 7, 1815, was but one milestone on a long journey of progress. For thousands of years, the banks of the Androscoggin River and its tributaries were the hunting grounds of the Abenaki Tribe. One of the legends that attests to the friendship that developed between the Native Americans and the first European settler concerns the Abenaki Princess Mollyocket, a woman with great spirit and knowledge of healing. A few years before the town was incorporated, she was called to the small settlement of Trap Corner to attend to a seriously ill infant. She nursed the baby back to health and pronounced that he would grow to greatness. Mollyocket's patient was Hannibal Hamlin, who became Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President. Settlement began in 1787, when 10 lots of 100 acres each were surveyed. The early settlers at what was called The Thousand Acre Squadron were drawn by fertile soil, vast forests, and fast-moving waters, which they turned into productive farms and busy mills. The wealth produced by the land and by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community. In 1815, 5 years before Maine statehood, the settlers' petition for incorporation to the Governor of Massachusetts was readily signed, although, for reasons lost to history, he rejected the proposed name of Sparta and chose Woodstock instead. The main population center of Woodstock is the Village of Bryant Pond, known for its beauty, recreation opportunities, and hospitality. Bryant Pond also is home to a 14-foot tall, 3,000-pound statue of an old-fashioned, hand-cranked telephone, the kind that had a human operator on the other end, to memorialize the town's distinction as the last place in the United States to use these devices. The townspeople finally gave up their hand-cranked telephones in 1983, but they retain their fondness for the personal touch. Woodstock is a charming town of involved citizens. The active historical society, volunteer fire department, and library are evidence of a strong community spirit. That spirit will be on full display this June, when Woodstock holds it Great Bicentennial Celebration. This 200th anniversary is not just about something that is measured in calendar years; it is about human accomplishment, an occasion to celebrate the people who for more than two centuries have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a community. Thanks to those who came before, Woodstock has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in light of the eloquent remarks from the assistant Democratic leader who is my friend, I hope he will listen carefully to the proposal I am about to outline. In just over 3 weeks the law that funds the Department of Homeland Security will expire, jeopardizing the Department's ability to carry out its critical mission. Legislation to provide funding to the Department throughout the remainder of this fiscal year has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate, but progress has stalled. The Democrats have blocked it from even being considered because it is not a clean bill. On my side of the aisle House Republicans have insisted that provisions remain in the bill directing the administration to spend no funds implementing a series of Presidential orders issued over the past few years. The Senate has held two votes this week to try to begin debate on this bill, both of which have failed on near-party lines. Thus, we have reached an impasse. In an attempt to find a path forward, yesterday I filed an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would accomplish three goals. First, it would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded to perform its vital mission to protect our people. Second, it would allow the Senate to go on record in strong opposition to the President's extraordinarily broad immigration Executive order issued last November. Third, it would protect the DREAMers whom Senator Durbin just talked about. I wish to go back to the November Executive order. This particular Executive order represents a misuse of the President's authority that threatens to undermine the separation of powers doctrine in our Constitution. As the President himself has said more than 20 times, he does not have the authority to expand the law in this manner. He made the exact point in remarks of July 2011 when he said: I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written. The President was exactly right when he stated that reality. The substitute I proposed would block the sweeping 2014 Executive order, but it does not overturn the more limited Executive orders from past years. Specifically, my amendment would not undo the 2012 deferred action program that allowed DREAMers, young people brought to the United States by their parents years ago, to receive legal status as long as they meet certain requirements. The House bill includes a controversial amendment, which I do not support, that would invalidate this 2012 program retroactively. My substitute accomplishes my third goal of protecting these children who have grown up here, who speak English, have clean criminal records, and often know no other country. They did not make the choice to come to America. That decision was made by their parent or parents. My substitute amendment, therefore, is straightforward. First, the amendment mirrors the underlying bill with respect to the funding levels provided to the Department of Homeland Security so it can carry out its functions. Ironically, there is no dispute over those funding levels. Second, it strikes the House provision restricting the expenditure of funds to implement the DREAMers Program that I described and that Senator Durbin just commented on. And third, it retains the House prohibition on expenditures to fund the President's unauthorized action on immigration announced in November of last year. Now, let me make clear that Congress should consider comprehensive immigration reform. The fact that there are now an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States is irrefutable evidence that our immigration and border security systems are badly broken. That is why I supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013. While I was disappointed that immigration reform legislation of some sort did not become law, I reject the notion that its failure can serve as the justification for the action taken by the President last November. He cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is central to our constitutional framework. Our Constitution vests the power to make law in the legislative branch--with Congress--not with the President. To the President it assigns the obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That was the rule used by the Supreme Court in 1952 in the famous Youngstown Sheet & Tubing case that overturned President Truman's Executive Order nationalizing the steel industry to prevent a strike during the Korean War. As the Court explained, the President's power to faithfully execute the laws does not make him a lawmaker. The Court said: (T)he Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws that he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. In other words, the President is not free to pick and choose among laws, enforcing the ones that he likes and ignoring the ones that he doesn't. The President is fully aware of this fact. He has often made the point that he could go no further than to protect the DREAMers. Here is what he said: Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. Those are the President's own words. The action taken by the President in November is a direct contradiction to his own statements. By acting unilaterally, ironically, the President is making it less likely that Congress will act to pass comprehensive reforms. He is undermining the efforts of those of us who favor immigration reform by diverting energy and attention from that goal. I urge my colleagues to give consideration to the proposed compromise that I filed as a substitute yesterday. It will ensure that the men and women on the front lines of the Department of Homeland Security can do their vitally important jobs, it will overturn the President's misuse of his Executive authority last November, and it will protect the legal status of children brought to this country by their parents years ago. Mr. President, I believe I have put forth a reasonable, constructive compromise that could get us out of this impasse that is such a disservice to so many. I hope my colleagues will join together and support the substitute I have proposed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Maine and Maryland have in common not only delicious seafood but also fine craft beers. I am delighted to join my friend and colleague Senator Cardin in support of the legislation that we have introduced, S. 375, the Small Brewer Reinvestment and Expanding Workforce Act, or Small BREW Act. The title is more than just a clever acronym. It is a statement of what our bipartisan bill really is all about. This is a jobs bill, and those covered by the bill are small businesses, entrepreneurs who are taking risks and creating jobs in communities around the country. We often talk in this Chamber about what we can do to help create the environment that encourages job creation. Our bill is one such practical means where we can spur the creation of new jobs as well as great products. In Maine, we are proud to boast that our State is now home to more than 60 breweries that produce more than 200 different brands. Maine beer is shipped around the country and has developed a real following among connoisseurs who have come to appreciate its quality and craftsmanship. This, in turn, has led to new tourism opportunities as visitors are drawn to our State to sample our delicious Maine craft beers. As the craft beer industry grows, so too does demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. Beyond creating delicious beer, these breweries are creating jobs. That is the whole rationale behind the bill we have introduced. In Maine alone, our craft breweries employ more than 1,400 people. That is an extraordinary number of jobs. As the Senator from Maryland has pointed out, these are jobs that are going to stay right here in America. They are not going to be outsourced. These are small businesses in our communities that are hiring people and making a difference. Nationally small and independent brewers employ more than 110,000 full- and part-time employees, generating more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal, and consumption taxes, according to the Brewers Association. What could we do to encourage even more employment in this area? The answer is to reduce the Federal excise tax on small craft brewers, and that is exactly what our bill would do. It would free up capital so these small business owners can reinvest in their companies and create more jobs. Under the current law, as Senator Cardin has pointed out, these small businesses pay $7 per barrel in Federal excise tax on the first 60,000 barrels they brew and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter. The Small BREW Act would reduce these rates to $3.50 on the first 60,000 barrels and $16 for production between 60,000 and 2 million barrels. Thereafter, the rate would remain at $18 per barrel. We know from the economic analysis that has been done that such a change would have a significant positive economic impact. A June 2013 study prepared by a professor, then at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, estimated that our bill would increase economic activity by $1 billion over 5 years, create more than 5,000 new jobs in the first year to 18 months after passage, and create approximately 400 new jobs annually thereafter. Again, I want to repeat, this is a jobs bill, and I am proud to sponsor it with my friend Senator Cardin. I am also delighted that we have the support of such a large number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including my colleague from Maine, Senator King. I urge all of our colleagues to take a look at this bill. If you want to do something that is concrete and we know will create more jobs for a growing industry that is carving out a niche in so many States across this Nation, then work with us to achieve passage of the Small BREW Act. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I be permitted to proceed for up to 20 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Nelson and I rise to discuss S. 266, the Retirement Security Act, legislation we filed earlier this week and first introduced last year. Our bill would encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans that would provide incentives for employees to save more for retirement and would ensure that low-income and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings that are already authorized in law. Our bill is the product of the work that Senator Nelson and I did together on the Special Committee on Aging. In the fall of 2013, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. The group that was surveyed were those Americans between ages 32 and 64. Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine the number is one in three. While 4 in 10 rely on this vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income, Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills. Certainly a comfortable retirement would be out of the question for most Americans. A recent Gallup poll shows there is an increase in concern among the American people about their standard of living in retirement. This has gone up over time. Two decades ago 34 percent of Americans were concerned. Now 60 percent of Americans are worried about their standard of living in retirement. Sadly, they are right to be concerned. Projections published in 2014 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that nearly half of ``early boomers''--those between ages 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including health care costs not covered by insurance. There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the demise of many defined-benefit pension plans in the private sector, the severity of the financial crisis we recently endured, rising health care costs, the greater and expanding need for long-term care, which is so expensive, but most of all the fact that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past. Many of us are also reaching retirement age with far more debt than retirees of previous generations. Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a July 2013 GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons that plans are not more widely offered by smaller employers. These employers would very much like to offer plans, but oftentimes the cost and the complexity make the plans out of reach. Therefore, making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security of many retirees. That is why the bill that we reintroduced earlier this week focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for retirement. Let me now go into detail about the provisions of our bill. First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans, MEPs, to offer retirement programs jointly to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee. Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose these tax benefits, which are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations. Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, to lessen costs. Fourth, the Retirement Security Act encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount of up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match. Finally, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so- called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet the credit cannot be claimed on a form 1040EZ, which is frequently used by these individuals. A 2013 Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, were aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040 EZ. I do want to emphasize in closing that is there is nothing in our bill that would force a small business to offer a 401(k) plan. That may be impractical for some small employers. What we are trying to do is to provide incentives for them to do so, to reduce the cost, and to make it possible for them to join together with other employers to offer retirement plans. We are trying also to provide incentives for employees to save more for their retirement. During my time on the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they had anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors in what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, poverty among the elderly also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save--and to save more--would help ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that are already projected to be unsustainable. In light of the positive impacts this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge our colleagues to join Senator Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2015. This bill has been endorsed by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council, the American Council of Life Insurers, Fidelity Investments, Lincoln Financial Group, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Plan Sponsor Council of America, the Principal Financial Group, the Society for Human Resource Management, TransAmerica, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these as well as other letters of support.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and I are offering an amendment that would help school officials to learn about existing Federal programs to improve energy efficiency in order to reduce school energy costs. It would not authorize any new programs or any new funding. It would simply require a review of existing Federal programs and require the Department of Energy to establish a coordinating structure so that schools can more easily navigate the many programs that are scattered across the Federal Government. I know of no opposition to the amendment. To try to make life easier for my colleagues, if it is acceptable to the managers, I would be happy to accept a voice vote. I don't know if my colleague from Virginia has any comments he would like to make.