Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am not going to call up my amendment at this time because I understand there is an objection on the other side. But I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss my amendment, which is No. 4218. This is an amendment I have offered on behalf of myself and Senators Inhofe, Alexander, Brown, Brownback, Gregg, Snowe, Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and Corker. On April 22, a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation regarding lead paint abatement went into effect. Lead paint has been of great concern to me for a number of years. I actually joined with the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in holding field hearings on the dangers of lead paint in older houses several years ago. It has long been a concern of mine. I support the purpose of this rule because we want to continue our efforts to rid toxic lead-based paint from our homes. I am deeply concerned, however, as are many of my colleagues, that the EPA has completely botched the implementation of this rule. The rule requires that contractors who were hired to do work in homes that have lead paint must first be certified to perform this work. We put the cart before the horse with this rule and the result is that the EPA has not ensured that there is a sufficient number of trainers to provide the training and the certification for these contractors. That means many contractors simply cannot get the necessary certification in most States. The result is that small business men and women are losing out on jobs at a time when many of them are in desperate need of work. Ironically, it also means that lead paint that homeowners want removed or mitigated will not be. In my State of Maine, for example, as of last week we have only three EPA trainers in the entire State to certify contractors. Just over 10 percent of the State's contractors have been certified. Hundreds of Maine's contractors have signed up for the training but they have been forced to wait. Their names are languishing on waiting lists, some for as long as 2 months. It is hard to envision how much worse a job EPA could have done in rolling out this regulation and it is not as if EPA did not know this was coming. EPA has had years to plan for the proper implementation of this regulation. Unfortunately, the EPA's rule carries a big penalty for contractors who do not get the required training. If contractors who perform work in homes built before 1978 are not EPA certified, they face fines of up to $37,500 per violation per day. Many of the painters in my State doing this work don't earn $37,000 in an entire year. How unfair it is when it is the EPA's fault in many cases that they are not certified. The lack of training and the EPA fines are creating a no-win situation. If contractors who have not received the EPA training work in these older homes, they face the possibility of literally losing their businesses, of being fined out of existence, due to the severity of the EPA fines. Meanwhile, the lead paint remains, raising the threat of lead poisoning and its significant health impacts. I have been trying to work with EPA officials since this problem first became evident to me in early March, but they have offered absolutely no reasonable accommodations, no reasonable solutions. In fact, it took the EPA 7 weeks to even offer any ideas for getting more trainers to the State of Maine--and even then the EPA's proposals were unworkable. I come to the floor to offer a common sense solution to a problem created by Washington's poor planning. My bipartisan amendment, which is cosponsored by so many of my colleagues--and let me give the list again. Senators Alexander, Inhofe, Brown, Brownback, Gregg, Snowe, Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and Corker--would prohibit the EPA from imposing fines against contractors who have signed up for the required training classes by September 30 of this year. This delay will allow, I hope, adequate time for contractors to comply with the law and to get the required training without fear of a fine that could well put them out of business. To be clear, our amendment does not stop the EPA from punishing those who willingly break the law and endanger a child's well-being. It simply gives the EPA more time to ensure that there is a sufficient number of trainers in each State, and it simply protects that small painter, that small businessman, that small contractor, from unfairly being fined when it is the EPA's fault he or she cannot get the required training. Inconceivably, I have heard the EPA say it has trained an adequate number of people in Maine, so let me give you the statistics for my State, because they are typical of many States. First, EPA estimates that there are only 1,400 contractors in Maine. In fact, however, there are more than 20,000 contractors in our State; not 1,400, but 20,000 people who need to be trained. EPA makes another erroneous assumption. It assumes that all of these people are part of large businesses and that only one person at each business needs to be certified. EPA also assumes that contractors specialize in doing just old homes or new homes. Completely false. That makes no sense at all in a rural State such as Maine, which has some of the oldest housing stock in the country and most painters are small shops, usually just an individual who is self-employed. At most, he might be part of a small business where there are two or three people who are doing the work. In addition, these individuals work in mixed communities which have older homes and newer homes. This is typical of every community in my State. We cannot ask them to give up working in older homes simply because an economist at the EPA does not understand what our housing stock looks like in Maine. Furthermore, most of the EPA's classes have been held in the southern part of the State. It is not feasible for people to have to travel hundreds of miles in order to obtain this training. I have heard that criticism and that problem from my colleagues in other States as well, that the EPA is offering the classes only in cities and has completely neglected the rural parts of their states. My home State of Maine is not the only State trapped in this bureaucratic dilemma. An EPA evaluation from early May shows, for example, that Hawaii only has two trainers. I cannot imagine how that can work in Hawaii given the islands. That is not feasible. Mississippi has only one trainer in the entire State. Three States--Louisiana, Wyoming, and South Dakota--do not have a single EPA-certified trainer. This is just not fair. It is not fair that these small contractors live under the threat of these onerous fines that would put many of them out of business, when it is not their fault they cannot obtain the training--it is EPA's fault. All of us understand that lead is a dangerous toxin and we must work to do whatever we can to keep our homes and our children safe. But the burden should not fall upon the shoulders of small contractors and construction professionals, painters and others, who are trying their best to comply with EPA's rule. Spring is home renovation season in most States. The small business men and women of Maine are just gearing up for the spring and summer months, and they are trying to recover from the great recession which has been so hard on their businesses. The onerous and unfair fines of more than $37,000 per day could put many of them out of business even as they wait for an EPA training class to become available. As they are waiting, if they choose not to do this work, they are losing income as well, and that is unfair. All I am attempting to do with this amendment is provide the EPA with more time in order to increase the number of certified trainers and the offering of these classes. With enough trainers, we can eventually ensure the success of this program. But without enough trainers, we are guaranteeing its failure and penalizing innocent contractors who are simply trying to make a living and who have been unable to secure the training required by the EPA. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, to designate the month of May 2010 as National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. An estimated 612,000 Americans have been diagnosed and are living with a brain tumor. Brain tumors do not discriminate. Primary brain tumors--those that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain-- occur in people of all ages, but are statistically more frequent in children and adults. Metastatic brain tumors--those that begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body and spread to the brain--are more common in adults than in children. Whether malignant or benign, brain tumors can be life threatening. They are the leading cause of death from solid tumors in children under the age of 20, and are the third leading cause of death from cancer in young adults between the ages of 20 and 39. The treatment of brain tumors is complicated by the existence of more than 120 different types of brain tumors. Treatment is further complicated by the location of these tumors and other obstacles to their treatment or complete surgical removal. While important advances have been made in understanding brain tumors, daunting obstacles remain to the development of new treatments. Moreover, there currently are no strategies for the screening or early detection of brain tumors. Designation of the month of May 2010 as National Brain Tumor Awareness Month will help to increase awareness of the prevalence and nature of brain tumors and will also help to encourage efforts to develop better treatments that will improve the qualify of life and long-term prognosis for those individuals who are affected. It also gives us the opportunity to show support for all those individuals who may be battling a brain tumor, as well as for their families, friends and caregivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important resolution.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, to designate the month of May 2010 as National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. An estimated 612,000 Americans have been diagnosed and are living with a brain tumor. Brain tumors do not discriminate. Primary brain tumors--those that begin in the brain and tend to stay in the brain-- occur in people of all ages, but are statistically more frequent in children and adults. Metastatic brain tumors--those that begin as a cancer elsewhere in the body and spread to the brain--are more common in adults than in children. Whether malignant or benign, brain tumors can be life threatening. They are the leading cause of death from solid tumors in children under the age of 20, and are the third leading cause of death from cancer in young adults between the ages of 20 and 39. The treatment of brain tumors is complicated by the existence of more than 120 different types of brain tumors. Treatment is further complicated by the location of these tumors and other obstacles to their treatment or complete surgical removal. While important advances have been made in understanding brain tumors, daunting obstacles remain to the development of new treatments. Moreover, there currently are no strategies for the screening or early detection of brain tumors. Designation of the month of May 2010 as National Brain Tumor Awareness Month will help to increase awareness of the prevalence and nature of brain tumors and will also help to encourage efforts to develop better treatments that will improve the qualify of life and long-term prognosis for those individuals who are affected. It also gives us the opportunity to show support for all those individuals who may be battling a brain tumor, as well as for their families, friends and caregivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important resolution.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment that Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Cochran, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Durbin and I filed to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act regarding funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission--SEC. This amendment would strike the section that would permit the Securities and Exchange Commission to be ``self-funded''. I have serious concerns with this provision because it would allow the SEC to self finance and thus avoid the scrutiny and oversight of the appropriations process. Our bipartisan amendment would keep SEC funding as part of the appropriations process and maintain critical congressional oversight. The financial crisis and its consequences have served to remind us all of the critical requirement for more robust oversight and heightened transparency throughout our regulatory environment and financial system. As we have seen, most recently in the review of the SEC's actions in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, there is clearly a demonstrated need for more Congressional oversight. The annual budget and appropriations process ensures congressional oversight of vital enforcement agencies such as the SEC. As noted by Vice Chairman Cochran, our amendment recognizes the need to ``regulate the regulators'' and to hold accountable those regulators who fail do their jobs correctly. And the recent inspector general investigation revealing that high- level SEC employees spent their days looking at porn rather than pursuing wrong-doing demonstrates the need for oversight. The appropriations process subjects the SEC to a review which must balance the requests of the Commission against the competing needs of other Federal agencies. That process, however, is grounded in the Constitution and the very foundation of our government is based on the concept of checks and balances. While I appreciate the accomplishments Chairman Shapiro has achieved during her tenure as chairman, funding decisions and the process by which they are made, cannot be based on any particular holder of an office, but rather on government- wide needs and the best interests of the taxpayers. Allowing the SEC to have sole authority to negotiate the fees that support its operations with the institutions they regulate precludes any meaningful oversight by Congress and invites conflicts of interest. Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the SEC Inspector General regarding enforcement procedures and internal controls over financial reporting highlight the need for congressional oversight. Also, the GAO has noted that SEC's current system of transaction-based fees could provide revenues that are less predictable and more difficult to estimate than the assessments used by bank regulators to fund their operations. While the budget and appropriations process is challenging for all Federal agencies, Senator Durbin and I, in our roles as Chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations subcommittee, have given careful review to all resource requests from the SEC and consistently placed a high priority on its requests, recognizing the agency's critical enforcement role. For the current fiscal year, Congress provided $1.11 billion, a 25 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 level and $85 million above the amount that the President and the SEC requested. The financial reform bill passed by the House of Representatives does not include a provision for the SEC to be self-funding. I share the hope of Chairman Inouye and all of the cosponsors of this amendment that the conference agreement on the bill before the Senate will preserve the critical oversight function inherent in the appropriations process. I urge that the SEC self-funding provision be dropped from the bill in conference to ensure that Congress can continue to play an important role in the oversight of our financial regulators.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment that Senator Murray and I have been working on together that would expand the Financial Stability Oversight Council established in S. 3217 to include as nonvoting members a State insurance commissioner, a State banking supervisor, and a State securities commissioner. Concomitantly, I seek to remove the independent voting member position having insurance expertise, as that would create a duplicative position. It is critically important that the Council incorporate State regulators. State banking, insurance, and securities regulators are on the front lines of financial regulation and therefore have information and perspectives that are necessary components of an effective regulatory structure. State regulators could act as ``first responders'' to the Council, in that they see trends developing at the State level. They could serve as an early warning system, identifying practices and risk-related trends that are substantial contributing factors to systemic risk. I ask for unanimous consent that the joint letter from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and the North American Securities Administrators Association supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also wish to speak briefly on my amendment, No. 3879, which would help raise capital and risk standards for banks, bank holding companies, and nonbank financial institutions. It is not my intent that this amendment affect the treatment of small bank holding companies as provided under the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, nor do I intend that the amendment apply to Federal Home Loan Banks. Likewise, I would like the record to reflect that the effective date for bank holding companies owned by foreign banking organizations that obtained an exemption from capital requirements pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Supervision and Regulation Letter SR-01-1 should be 5 years after enactment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this intent is properly reflected in the final language of this reform bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am calling up tonight the amendment I debated on the Senate floor on Monday, with Senator Dodd and other Members who were present. This amendment would direct regulators to impose strong risk- and size-based capital standards on financial institutions as they grow in size or engage in risky practices. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Brownback. Our amendment is aimed at addressing the too-big-to-fail problem at the root of the current economic crisis by requiring financial firms to have adequate amounts of cash and other liquid assets to survive financial challenges without turning to the taxpayers for a bailout. I note this amendment would ensure that the Nation's largest banks and bank holding companies are required to meet, at a minimum, the same capital standards that are imposed on smaller community banks. That is right. It may be odd to realize, but the fact is, under current law, regulators can allow larger financial institutions to follow capital standards that are actually less stringent than those that are applied to smaller depository institutions. That makes no sense whatsoever, and that is why this amendment has the strong support of the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair. She has written me a letter endorsing this amendment. She points out it is a critical element to ensure that U.S. financial institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb losses during future periods of financial stress. ``It is imperative,'' she writes, ``that they have sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of adversity.'' This amendment would apply to some of our largest banks as well as bank holding companies, and it would also apply to nonbank financial institutions that are identified for supervision by the Federal Reserve by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council, established by the bill. This council is the council of regulators that will be created so we have an entity that would look across the economy to identify financial institutions and practices, risky practices that could pose a systemic risk to our economy. Since I did debate the amendment at length on Monday, I am not going to go on at length tonight, especially since there are others of my colleagues who are waiting to speak. I would note that I have had a very good discussion with the managers of the bill, and I look forward to working further with them in the hopes that we can schedule this amendment for a vote tomorrow. I note this is a bipartisan amendment and that we have consulted at length with the chairman of the Banking Committee. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Chairman of the FDIC be printed in the Record, which letter further describes the amendment and the need for it, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 3879, which is pending at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I had the privilege of serving the people of Maine as a financial regulator for 5 years about 20 years ago. This is an issue about which I care deeply and am committed to helping forge a solution to, so that never again can the problems and the excesses of Wall Street have such dire consequences for Main Street. Increasing capital requirements as firms grow provides a disincentive to their becoming too big to fail in the first place, and ensures an adequate capital cushion in difficult economic times. Our amendment directs the regulators to establish capital standards that take size and risk into account. Our amendment strengthens the economic foundation of large financial firms, increases oversight and accountability, and helps prevent the excesses that contributed to a deep recession that has cost millions of Americans their jobs. Let me conclude by thanking the chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member of the Banking Committee and members such as the Presiding Officer and Senator Corker and Senator Gregg for their work on this very complex issue. More than a year ago I introduced a financial regulatory reform bill. I had the pleasure of discussing the bill with the chairman of the Banking Committee, and I am pleased with much of what is in his bill at this point in the debate. I hope we can continue to make further changes, such as the amendment I have proposed with Senator Shaheen, but I do want to salute the members of the Banking Committee. I know this is enormously complex and, at times, a thankless task. But it is so important. In fact, I argued that we should have dealt with financial regulatory reform last year. I think it is that important to the future of our economy. We realize we were operating with regulatory black holes that allowed, for example, trillions of dollars of credit default swaps to develop with no one having oversight or visibility as far as their impact on the financial market. They were not regulated as insurance, even though I personally believe they act as an insurance product, nor were they regulated by the banking regulators. The creation of the Council of Regulators in this bill has not received a great deal of discussion, but I think it is one of the most important provisions in this reform, and it is one that has widespread bipartisan support. It was the key feature of the bill I introduced last year. I have discussed it with the Presiding Officer as well. I personally still believe we need an independent chairman of that council rather than the Secretary of the Treasury. I think we need to broaden the makeup of the council to include some State regulators so that the insurance area is covered, and State securities administrators, since they play such a critical role. I think those State regulators should be brought on to the council in a nonvoting capacity given the constitutional issues. But that council is absolutely critical. I think we should add the regulator for credit unions to that council. What we want is a council with as broad an overview as possible, bringing together everyone who has a role so we do not have these regulatory gaps, these black holes developing in the future, and so that we can bring the collective wisdom of these officials to the table. So that is an example of a provision of this bill that I think is extraordinarily important. But perhaps because it does have widespread support, it has not generated much discussion on this floor. So I wanted to mention that and salute the committee for what I think is a provision that is going to make a real difference in preventing the kinds of problems we saw that triggered the recession of 2008. I also want to commend Senator Levin and Senator Coburn for their work on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the Senate's premiere investigative subcommittee which is part of the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee which Senator Lieberman and I have the privilege of leading. They have given us great insight into the role of everyone from sloppy mortgage brokers and bankers who threw underwriting standards out the window and made loans that never should have been made to people who could not possibly repay them. They have looked at the role of credit rating agencies that also did not perform in the way we would like. They have looked at the role of investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. We need to take the lessons we have learned, the great depth of knowledge in this body, and work together in a bipartisan way. That is what we have been doing in the last couple of weeks. In closing, let me just say, we have made a lot of progress. I am confident we can get there. Let's not pull the plug on this debate prematurely. There are a lot of amendments that are good-faith amendments that are still out there. Let's work through them and continue to strengthen and improve this bill which has so many excellent features to it. At the end of the day, I hope we can vote on a bill that will command the support of 70 Members of this body. I would like it to be all 100, but let's aim for 70. In doing so we can demonstrate to the American people that we can come together and work on an issue that really matters--matters to our economy, to the American homeowners, to our small businesses, to anyone who has a retirement account. It matters to every American. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC, May 7, 2010. Hon. Susan M. Collins, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Collins: I am writing to express my strong support for your amendment number 3879 to ensure strong capital requirements for our nation's financial institutions. This amendment is a critical element to ensure that U.S. financial institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb losses during future periods of financial stress. With new resolution authority, taxpayers will no longer bail out large financial institutions. This makes it imperative that they have sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of adversity. During the crisis, FDIC-insured subsidiary banks became the source of strength both to the holding companies and holding company affiliates. Far from being a source of strength to banks as Congress intended, holding companies became a source of weakness requiring federal support. If, in the future, bank holding companies are to become sources of financial stability for insured banks, then they cannot operate under consolidated capital requirements that are numerically lower and qualitatively less stringent than those applying to insured banks. This amendment would address this issue by requiring bank holding companies to operate under capital standards at least as stringent as those applying to banks. The crisis also demonstrated the dangers of excessive leverage undertaken by large nonbanks outside of the scope of federal bank regulation. Notable examples included the excessive leverage of the largest investment banks during the run-up to the crisis, and the extremely high leverage of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To remedy this and prevent regulatory gaps and arbitrage, large nonbank financial institutions deemed to be systemic must be held to the same, or higher, capital standards as those applying to banks and bank holding companies. Again, the amendment accomplishes this goal simply and directly. Finally, and more broadly, the crisis identified the dangers of a regulatory mindset focused exclusively on the soundness of individual banks without reference to the ``big picture.'' For example, an individual overnight repo may be safe, but widespread financing of illiquid securities with overnight repos left the system vulnerable to a liquidity crisis. A financial system-wide view requires regulators, working in conjunction with the new Financial Services Oversight Panel, to develop capital regulations to address the risks of activities that affect the broader financial system, beyond the bank that is engaging in the activity. We at the FDIC remain committed to working with you towards a stronger financial system. This amendment will be an important step in accomplishing this goal. If you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me or Paul Nash, Deputy for External Affairs. Sincerely, Sheila C. Bair, Chairman.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an amendment I filed to direct regulators to impose tough risk- and size- based capital standards on financial institutions as they grow in size or engage in risky business practices. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Shaheen and myself. Our amendment is aimed at addressing the too-big-to-fail problem at the root of the current crisis by requiring financial firms to have adequate amounts of cash and other liquid assets to survive financial crises without turning to the taxpayers for a bailout. It is critical to our ability to avoid future crises that this amendment be adopted. I am very pleased that the FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair, has strongly endorsed our amendment. In a recent letter to me, Chairman Bair called this proposal: . . . a critical element to ensure that U.S. financial institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb losses during future periods of financial stress. With new resolution authority, taxpayers will no longer bail out large financial institutions. This makes it imperative that they have sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of adversity. Chairman Bair also noted the importance of ensuring that bank holding companies and large nonbanks are held to the same capital and risk standards that are applied to insured banks in order to protect against excessive leverage that could destabilize our financial system. As Chairman Bair put it, ``The amendment accomplishes this goal simply and directly.'' It makes no sense that capital and risk standards for our Nation's largest financial institutions are more lenient than those that apply to small depository banks, when the failure of larger institutions is much more likely to have a broad economic impact. Yet that is currently the case. We must give the regulators the tools to end and the direction to address this problem. If financial firms, including bank holding companies, were required to meet stronger capital standards, they would be far less likely to fail and to trigger the kind of cascade of economic harm we have been experiencing since 2008. The Collins-Shaheen amendment directs Federal regulators to impose minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements on banks, bank holding companies, and those nonbank financial firms identified by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council for supervision by the Federal Reserve. Neither current law nor the bill before us requires regulators to adjust capital standards for risk factors as financial institutions grow in size and engage in risky practices. The current Senate financial regulatory reform bill also does not require regulators to apply minimum capital and risk measures across financial institutions, as would be required by our amendment. As the FDIC Chairman has noted about the current financial crisis, ``Far from being a source of strength to banks . . . holding companies became a source of weakness, requiring financial support.'' She went on to caution that ``they should not be allowed to operate under consolidated capital requirements that are numerically lower and qualitatively less stringent than those that apply to insured banks.'' Our amendment would tighten the standards that would apply to larger financial institutions by requiring them to meet, at a minimum, the standards that already apply to small banks. This only makes sense. If a small bank fails, the FDIC can close down that bank over a weekend, allow it to operate, avoid a run on the bank, and deal with it in an orderly way. But if a large bank holding company fails, it is so interconnected in our economy that it sets off a cascade of dire economic consequences. That was the point that the chairman of the Banking Committee was just making. We live in such an interconnected global financial system now. So, from my point of view, a view that is shared by the Chairman of the FDIC, it is only prudent for us to empower the regulators to impose, at a minimum, the same kinds of capital and leverage requirements and restrictions that apply to small insured banks. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Chairman Bair be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment that would expand the Financial Stability Council established in S. 3217 to include the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration. It is important that the council incorporate a Federal credit union regulator to ensure consumer regulation protections. Ninety-two million Americans are members of credit unions. Insofar as S. 3217, section 1023 provides that any member agency of the council may set aside a final regulation or provision prescribed by the bureau, a national credit union representative should sit on the council to ensure fairness for its members. Moreover, similar legislation passed by the House included the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration in its Financial Services Oversight Council, so this amendment would make the composition of the council in both the House and Senate consistent. Finally, given their size, no single credit union poses a systemic risk to the overall U.S. financial system. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this statement and the supporting letters from the Credit Union National Association, the largest credit union advocacy organization representing nearly 90 percent of America's 8,700 State and federally chartered credit unions, National Credit Union Administration, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in the statute. Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former state legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today. First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting state education standards. Specifically, it would permit states to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. Third, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act while still ensuring accountability. Fourth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the states toward meeting this goal every three years, and would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary. Fifth, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Wisconsin in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in Medicare home health payment rates. Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare millions of dollars each year. That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare home health benefit continually comes under attack. The health care reform bill that was recently signed into law by the President includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over the next ten years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health over the next ten years imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation. These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $18 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it certainly is not in the best interest of our Nation's seniors who rely on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions. The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years. In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not penalize everyone. The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of its validity and accuracy of outcomes. The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth in the bill. Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010 will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Wisconsin in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in Medicare home health payment rates. Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare millions of dollars each year. That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare home health benefit continually comes under attack. The health care reform bill that was recently signed into law by the President includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over the next ten years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health over the next ten years imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation. These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $18 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it certainly is not in the best interest of our Nation's seniors who rely on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions. The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years. In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not penalize everyone. The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of its validity and accuracy of outcomes. The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth in the bill. Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010 will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in the statute. Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former state legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today. First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting state education standards. Specifically, it would permit states to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. Third, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act while still ensuring accountability. Fourth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the states toward meeting this goal every three years, and would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary. Fifth, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing Child Abuse Prevention Month. I am honored to be joined by a longtime advocate of children, Senator Dodd, in turning a spotlight on the issue of child abuse and neglect in this country. Senator Dodd and I share a common belief that children should be valued and nurtured by both their families and the larger family of humankind. 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 2008 Child Maltreatment Study compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, during 2008, an estimated 772,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,740 children died as a result. My home State of Maine is mourning the death of 15-month old Damien Lynn, who was allegedly murdered by his mother's boyfriend. Autopsy reports show that little Damien had broken bones and ribs, head and abdominal injuries, and a human bite mark on his right arm. It is in Damien's memory, and that of the thousands of children who are abused and neglected each year, that I come to the floor today. The time has come for Americans to unite in an all-out effort to eradicate child abuse. 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.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize April as the 22nd Annual National American City Quality Month. Led by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, American City Planning Directors' Council/American City Quality Foundation, Urban Land Institute, City Planning and Management Division of the American Planning Association, International City/County Management Association, American Public Transportation Association, American Society of Landscape Architects and others, this valuable program brings together a wide range of public and private partners. Their efforts demonstrate what it takes to plan and develop better quality communities addressing vital issues including land use, building design, transportation, housing, parks and recreation, energy efficiency, economic development, environmental protection, sustainability and livability. City planners across my State of Maine and throughout the Nation are calling on public and private sector leaders to commit to preparing, adopting and implementing a nationwide better quality communities plan that will lead to better planning, redevelopment and development of our Nation's cities and surrounding regions. This is essential to accommodate U.S. Census projected population growth of about 30 million by the year 2020 and 100 million within 30 to 40 years. This is the equivalent of building eleven cities the size of Chicago. Also, it will help to create jobs, stop urban sprawl, guide billions of dollars of investment to improve communities while lowering governmental operating expenses and taxes. This public-private partnership is necessary to meet the growing need for higher quality, more energy efficient and sustainable housing, buildings, public transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, and industry. All citizens are urged to get involved by contacting their community planners. I applaud these collaborative efforts to improve urban and rural communities across our Nation. This collaborative planning works. Just last year, Forbes Magazine named Portland, ME, my State's largest city, as the most livable city in America. In addition, Portland's busy Commercial Street was voted as one of the country's great streets by the American Planning Association. The transformation of Portland did not happen by accident. It is the result of citizens and organizations working together. American City Quality Month celebrates this effort. This year our Governor, John Baldacci, proclaimed April as American City Quality Month. Other Governors and officials are invited to do the same.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motions and amendments so that I may offer an amendment which is at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment I have offered which would waive the job-killing fines in the reconciliation bill in cases where an employer hires an unemployed worker. I think these penalties will come as a surprise to most Americans. With unemployment at 9.7 percent, and a real concern that we may be on the brink of a double-dip recession, most Americans will be shocked to learn that Washington wants to slap fines on small businesses that choose to hire more workers. But the new health care law does exactly that. Incredibly, this reconciliation package makes this problem even worse. Here is how. In the reconciliation package, small businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees would be fined $2,000 for each worker on their payroll. The way the formula works, the fines kick in at $40,000 when a small business reaches 50 employees. After that, they go up at a rate of $2,000 for each new worker. Imagine what this will do to job growth. Our country relies on small businesses to create new jobs. In fact, time and time again, you will hear on the Senate floor that small businesses are the engine of the American economy. I certainly agree with that. But this reconciliation bill creates a wall--40,000 dollars high--around any small business that wants to grow past 49 workers. Think what these job-killing penalties will mean to the unemployed. More than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs since 2007. More than 6 million have been unemployed longer than 27 weeks. But beyond even these grim statistics, the true picture of unemployment in this country is actually far worse. Broader measures of unemployment show that 16 percent of the American people are without jobs or cannot find full-time work. I recognize some in this body will argue we should not be bothered with these penalties now because they do not become effective right away. But those who would say such a thing simply do not understand how small businesses work. We are not talking about big multinational conglomerates here. We are talking about Main Street businesses that are already struggling. Many of them are family-owned enterprises. They do not look at their employees as interchangeable parts, and they do not make hiring decisions to ``get rich quick.'' When they bring a new employee on board, they are choosing someone who they know will become part of their team and the face of their business to the community they serve. Having these fines on the books will discourage job growth now, no matter when they become effective, because small businesses will not hire and train workers today just to fire them tomorrow when these penalties go into effect. Ironically, less than a week ago, the President signed into law the so-called HIRE Act. It contains a provision authored by Senators Schumer and Hatch to provide a temporary tax credit to encourage companies to hire unemployed workers. That is a creative idea, and I supported it. But for the life of me, I do not understand how a week later we could vote for a bill that imposes fines that will hit small businesses when they hire new workers. This makes no sense to me, and it is completely contrary to the policy we passed a week ago when we gave tax credits to encourage businesses to hire workers who are unemployed. With this bill, we are going to fine them if they hire workers who are unemployed if they cannot afford to provide them with health insurance. That is why I am offering this commonsense amendment. It would waive the fines, the onerous fines that are in the reconciliation bill when small businesses and medium-size businesses hire workers who were previously unemployed. The mechanism to determine which workers qualify is exactly the same one we adopted in the jobs bill passed by this body last week. It is the height of irony that we would even consider imposing penalties and fines on businesses that are hiring more workers, particularly during this difficult economic time. I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, just last week we passed the HIRE Act, which included a tax credit offered by Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch to encourage companies to hire unemployed workers. It makes no sense for any of us to have voted for that bill and then not to support the amendment that I have offered. The amendment I am offering would waive the onerous fines that are in this bill for small businesses that hire unemployed workers. If you voted for the HIRE Act giving a tax credit, why in the world would you support a policy of imposing penalties on businesses that hire unemployed workers? Mr. President, I urge support of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, let me begin by saluting the leadership of my colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman. He has been so persistent in ensuring a debate on this program. His leadership on this issue, as on every other issue I work with him on, has been exemplary. I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Ensign, Voinovich, Feinstein, and Byrd in offering this amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. More than 5 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low- income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high quality education. The program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, it is dismaying that critics would seek to dismantle the program. The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students participating in the program, parallels what we have learned from recent independent studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education. In December 2009, University of Arkansas researchers released the findings of a new evaluation entitled ``Family Reflections on the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.'' The project sought to ``capture the contextual nuances of what is happening in the lives of the families experiencing the Program'' by conducting a qualitative assessment. The study showed that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the Washington Scholarship Fund. In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall; students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional three months of learning. As I noted previously, this amendment has bipartisan support and was crafted using input from Members on both sides of the aisle. As chair and ranking member of the Financial Services General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin and I held a hearing last September on funding for schools in the District. We heard from stakeholders representing DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This amendment is the byproduct of their input as well as that of my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin. In addition to providing scholarships for low-income students and their family's real choice in education, the amendment authorizes $20 million for DC public schools and $20 million for pubic charter schools--so that all students in the District have access to a high quality education. Further, our amendment includes provisions supported by Senator Durbin. Among other things, it provides that all participating OSP schools maintain a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the DC government, that core subject matter teachers in OSP schools must hold at least a bachelor's degree, and that all OSP schools must be accredited. We all must place what's best for students first. If Congress were to discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated that 86 percent of the students would be reassigned to schools that did not meet ``adequate yearly progress'' goals in reading and math for the 2006-07 school year. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We are talking about averting a true tragedy by adopting the Lieberman amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I do not use that word ``tragedy'' often nor lightly. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the futures of young people in the District of Columbia. That is what is at stake in this debate. It is that serious. It is important to go back and look at the history of the DC scholarship program. More than 5 years ago, the leaders of the District of Columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure within the District's public school system that they came to Congress and worked with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to design a new three-sector strategy that provided new funding for public schools in the District, for public charter schools, and for scholarships for low-income children who might choose to attend a private school. Working with the District's leaders, Congress then passed the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education, an education that would give them the opportunity to excel, the opportunity for a bright future. That is what the debate is about. Indeed, we have seen incredible enthusiasm for this program, and the three-pronged approach has helped DC's public schools to get on the path of improvement and DC's charter schools which are also providing some quality educational opportunities. But a young man who testified before our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee put it very well when he was asked by a Senator who opposed the DC scholarship program why we should not, instead, focus solely on the DC Public Schools. He said: Mr. Senator, the DC schools didn't get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better overnight. Clearly, what he was saying was, why should he lose the opportunity for a good education and a bright future while he is waiting for DC Public Schools to get better. I join in the admiration for Michelle Rhee, who is working very hard with the mayor and with the city council to improve the DC Public Schools. We are making progress. We rejoice in that progress. We support that progress. That is why we are continuing to provide Federal funding for DC's public schools. But as this young man told us, the DC schools did not get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better overnight, no matter what extraordinary leadership they are receiving. The DC scholarship program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, with the stakes so great, it is dismaying, to say the least--I think it is tragic--that critics are seeking to dismantle this program. The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students participating in the DC scholarship program parallel what we have learned from recent independent, rigorous studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education. Senator Lieberman and I heard firsthand from the researcher who conducted that study. He told us parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in this program, and they also told us the students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional 3 months of learning. Given that these students had not been enrolled in these better schools for very long, that is impressive progress. I am certain as their education continues, if it is allowed to continue, we will see even more substantial educational gains. It is so disappointing--it is discouraging and dismaying--that we are having to fight for the continuation of a program that each and every day is making a difference in the lives of these children. I am going to challenge my colleagues, before you decide how you are going to vote on this program, if you are inclined to vote against our amendment, first talk to just one student who is enrolled in this program and their parents. If you then can come to the floor and, in good conscience, vote against the Lieberman-Collins amendment--well, suffice it to say, I don't think our colleagues can, in good conscience, vote against our amendment, if they have talked to any of the students and their families who are benefiting from this program. It would be truly a tragedy for the children of the District of Columbia if this program is not continued. Let me end my comments with one startling fact. If Congress were to discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated 86 percent of the students would be returned to schools that are failing schools, schools that did not meet the adequate yearly progress standard for reading and math for the 2006-2007 school year. We simply cannot, in good conscience, allow that to happen. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the facts revealed by our hearing, the rigorous studies that have been done to compare educational progress, the recommendations of the chancellor of the DC Public Schools and, most of all, I hope they will listen to the students and to the families whose lives have been changed for the better due to this program. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is a mid-winter tradition throughout New England and across my home State of Maine--talking baseball. Not just any baseball, of course, but Boston Red Sox baseball. These discussions, whether they take place around the kitchen wood stove or the office water cooler, range from the team's storied history to the prospects for the upcoming season. The heroes of the past, Yastrzemski, Williams, and so many more, are recalled, as are the more recent stars, such as Schilling and Ramirez. At times, fans reminisce about a young man who, although his career was cut tragically short, continues to inspire through his athleticism, competitive spirit, and generosity. His name was Aristotle George Agganis. His friends called him Harry. He will always be remembered as the Golden Greek. Harry Agganis was born in Lynn, MA, in 1929. Although he is known as a baseball player, he first made his mark in football as a star quarterback for Boston University. As a sophomore in 1949 he set a school record for touchdown passes. He left school in 1950 to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps. When he completed his service to our nation, he returned to college, setting a school record for passing yards, winning the Bulger Lowe Award as New England's outstanding football player, and becoming Boston University's first All-American in football. Upon his graduation, he was offered a lucrative contract to play football for the Cleveland Browns but chose instead to sign with the Red Sox so he could remain near his widowed mother. Here are a few stories that illustrate the character of this young man and the esteem in which he is held. While still a student in 1953, Harry Agganis was inducted into the new Boston University Hall of Fame. He declined gifts of a car and $4,000 from his classmates and instead asked that the cash equivalent be put toward establishing a scholarship for Greek-American students with financial need. On June 6, 1954, he homered at Fenway Park and scored the winning run as the Red Sox beat the Detroit Tigers. Following the game, he changed into a cap and gown in the Sox clubhouse, ran down Commonwealth Avenue in time for the graduation ceremonies on the B.U. campus, and received his bachelor's degree in education. As the 1955 season opened, he was off to a good start, but on June 2 he was hospitalized with pneumonia. He rejoined the team 10 days later but fell ill again. He died on June 27 of a pulmonary embolism. Ten thousand mourners attended his wake. His career was brief, but his name lives on. In 1956, a 1,000-seat baseball facility, Harry Agganis Stadium, was dedicated in his honor at Camp Lejeune, NC, where he served. A memorial plaque placed at the field reads, ``Endowed with peerless talent, Corporal Agganis exemplified the finest in competitive spirit and sportsmanship. An All- American football player, and later a professional baseball player, his outstanding accomplishments in the field of athletics were an inspiration to other Marines who served and were teammates with him during his career in the Marine Corps.'' He was inducted posthumously into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1974. In 1995, Gaffney Street in Boston was re-named Harry Agganis Way. In 2004, Agganis Arena was dedicated in his honor on the Boston University campus. Each year, members of the New England Sportswriters Association present the Harry Agganis Award to the outstanding New England college football senior. His character and accomplishments have been set to music by a talented songwriter and devoted Red Sox fan in Bangor, ME, named Joe Pickering, Jr. Joe recently retired after 30 years of dedicated service as executive director of Community Health and Counseling Services in Bangor. It is my pleasure to have printed his inspiring lyrics into the Record: The Golden Greek Time washes away people who depart You who remain cherish heroes of the heart They seldom grace earth but, not for long The Golden Greek lives in this song Too many athletes spell team as m-e The Golden Greek knew team meant only we This All-American truly stood apart The Golden Greek was simply pure of heart Four hundred churches honored for forty days The man who touched many hearts in so many ways Fifty thousand said goodbye as his church choir Sang love for the man who set the sports world afire Harry Agganis stirred heart and soul Did God take him so he would never grow old? Heroes live forever though Harry died young The song of the Golden Greek will always be sung Thousands of marines in the Carolina sun Named a field for the marine who left no deed undone The first Olympic heroes won olive wreaths His silver wreath from the king and queen of Greece The seventh child of immigrants born in Lynn Learned playing the game right was the way to win He hit major league pitching at fourteen years of age Then went on to glory on the sports page This Hall of Famer scrambled forty yards from the pocket He threw feather passes or shots like a rocket Though he looked and played like a Greek god This flesh and blood hero was one with the lord He gave to the poor and church, gifts he received Harry lived the golden rule, as he believed His smile warm and bright like sunshine in July Why at twenty-six did this Red Sox star die? The NFL played games in honor of his name All for a man who never played a pro game He planned to play for the Sox and the NFL What might have been only God can tell This hero of the heart was like no other His last words: were ``take care of my mother'' In the pantheon of sports, the Golden Greek reigns His mem'ry glowing like the Olympic flame

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on my own behalf and on behalf of numerous members of the Republican caucus who have expressed concerns to me, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage. Madam President, this is the House-passed bill that extends for 30 days the following expiring provisions: unemployment insurance, which is so important to those who are struggling--there are 500 Mainers whose benefits expired on Sunday; the COBRA health insurance extension subsidies for the unemployed; important flood insurance; highway funding; small business loans; the provisions of the American Recovery Act that include those small business loan provisions; the doctors fix. If we do not act, physicians all across this country are going to have a 21-percent cut in their Medicare reimbursements. I hope we can act together for the American people. Again, I want to emphasize that this issue is so important to Senators on both sides of the aisle. Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns to me that this was not done last week when it should have been done. So, Madam President, I do propose the unanimous-consent request.