Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators McCaskill, Lieberman, and Coburn, in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan measure that will help detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in government operations. This legislation is an important companion to S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007, which the Senate passed last night by unanimous consent. Indeed, many of the reforms in this bill were included in S. 680 in February, when I first introduced that legislation along with Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and McCaskill. At our Committee's markup of S. 680, I recommended that the provisions governing Inspectors General be removed from that bill so that we could work together to improve the effectiveness of our Nation's Inspectors General in a separate legislative vehicle. The legislation we introduce today reflects that collaboration and continues our Committee's strong, bipartisan efforts to improve the effectiveness of Government. Inspectors General are vital partners in Congress's effort to identify inefficient, ineffective, and improper Government programs. By leveraging the expertise and independence of Inspectors General and their staffs, Congress has been able to identify, and take action to stop, wasteful spending. Examples of the IGs' invaluable work could be cited in depressingly large numbers, but let me note two efforts that I found particularly striking. In a 6-month period following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the Department of Homeland Security's IG produced 29 reports that included alarming discoveries, including that 63 percent of the DHS purchase-card transactions made during the response had no documentation of goods or services actually being received. The DHS IG investigations helped produce 243 convictions for fraud or related offenses and aided in recovery of millions of taxpayer dollars. As you will recall, the impressive work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction led to Congress's extending SIGIR's work in that country. The SIGIR reported, among other things, that more than $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed in 2004 could not be accounted for, that hundreds of contracts had problems, and that many projects to restore Iraq's water and electric services would not be completed. The SIGIR's work is estimated to yield taxpayers $25 of benefit for every dollar of cost. The investigations and reports of IGs throughout the government help Congress shape legislation and oversight activities--improving Government performance, providing important transparency into programs, and giving Americans better value for their tax dollar. Unfortunately, the past year has produced troubling instances in which the independence of Inspectors General has been challenged within their respective departments. We have also heard allegations of misconduct by some Inspectors General. These alarming examples of pressure and impropriety cannot be tolerated, and the legislation we introduce today is an important first step in clarifying congressional expectations concerning the independence, funding, training, and accountability of the Federal Government's Inspectors General. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2007 would improve the independence and effectiveness of Inspectors General and contribute to better relations among the IGs, the agencies they serve, and the Congress. These improvements will also help to insulate and protect Inspectors General from inappropriate efforts to hinder their investigations. First and foremost, the legislation provides a clear manifestation of how Congress believes IGs should be chosen. It amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to explicitly require appointments on the basis of ability and integrity, not political affiliation. Additional enhancements included in the bill are a mandatory requirement to notify Congress 30 days before the removal of an IG, helping to prevent politically motivated attempts to terminate effective IGs. A separate budget line for Inspectors General that includes their overall budget and training needs, helping to ensure that these offices are properly funded to perform their important mission. A pay increase for IGs and a prohibition on cash bonuses or awards. Most IGs already refuse to accept bonuses to avoid an appearance of conflict, with the result that many deputies earn more than the IGs. This provision will improve an IG's influence and independence within an agency while avoiding the appearance of improper influence that bonuses can create. Authorization for the Government-wide IG Council on Integrity and Efficiency that will ensure appropriate investigations of misconduct or malfeasance by IGs. And finally, Clarification that the IGs' subpoena authority extends to electronic documents. The oversight experience of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and many reviews by the Government Accountability Office have confirmed the vital importance of the Inspector General function in our system of Government. By addressing identified shortcomings and further insulating IGs from inappropriate influence, the legislation we introduce today will make a critical function of Government even more effective. I urge my colleagues to support its prompt consideration and passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators McCaskill, Lieberman, and Coburn, in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan measure that will help detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in government operations. This legislation is an important companion to S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007, which the Senate passed last night by unanimous consent. Indeed, many of the reforms in this bill were included in S. 680 in February, when I first introduced that legislation along with Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and McCaskill. At our Committee's markup of S. 680, I recommended that the provisions governing Inspectors General be removed from that bill so that we could work together to improve the effectiveness of our Nation's Inspectors General in a separate legislative vehicle. The legislation we introduce today reflects that collaboration and continues our Committee's strong, bipartisan efforts to improve the effectiveness of Government. Inspectors General are vital partners in Congress's effort to identify inefficient, ineffective, and improper Government programs. By leveraging the expertise and independence of Inspectors General and their staffs, Congress has been able to identify, and take action to stop, wasteful spending. Examples of the IGs' invaluable work could be cited in depressingly large numbers, but let me note two efforts that I found particularly striking. In a 6-month period following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the Department of Homeland Security's IG produced 29 reports that included alarming discoveries, including that 63 percent of the DHS purchase-card transactions made during the response had no documentation of goods or services actually being received. The DHS IG investigations helped produce 243 convictions for fraud or related offenses and aided in recovery of millions of taxpayer dollars. As you will recall, the impressive work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction led to Congress's extending SIGIR's work in that country. The SIGIR reported, among other things, that more than $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed in 2004 could not be accounted for, that hundreds of contracts had problems, and that many projects to restore Iraq's water and electric services would not be completed. The SIGIR's work is estimated to yield taxpayers $25 of benefit for every dollar of cost. The investigations and reports of IGs throughout the government help Congress shape legislation and oversight activities--improving Government performance, providing important transparency into programs, and giving Americans better value for their tax dollar. Unfortunately, the past year has produced troubling instances in which the independence of Inspectors General has been challenged within their respective departments. We have also heard allegations of misconduct by some Inspectors General. These alarming examples of pressure and impropriety cannot be tolerated, and the legislation we introduce today is an important first step in clarifying congressional expectations concerning the independence, funding, training, and accountability of the Federal Government's Inspectors General. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2007 would improve the independence and effectiveness of Inspectors General and contribute to better relations among the IGs, the agencies they serve, and the Congress. These improvements will also help to insulate and protect Inspectors General from inappropriate efforts to hinder their investigations. First and foremost, the legislation provides a clear manifestation of how Congress believes IGs should be chosen. It amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to explicitly require appointments on the basis of ability and integrity, not political affiliation. Additional enhancements included in the bill are a mandatory requirement to notify Congress 30 days before the removal of an IG, helping to prevent politically motivated attempts to terminate effective IGs. A separate budget line for Inspectors General that includes their overall budget and training needs, helping to ensure that these offices are properly funded to perform their important mission. A pay increase for IGs and a prohibition on cash bonuses or awards. Most IGs already refuse to accept bonuses to avoid an appearance of conflict, with the result that many deputies earn more than the IGs. This provision will improve an IG's influence and independence within an agency while avoiding the appearance of improper influence that bonuses can create. Authorization for the Government-wide IG Council on Integrity and Efficiency that will ensure appropriate investigations of misconduct or malfeasance by IGs. And finally, Clarification that the IGs' subpoena authority extends to electronic documents. The oversight experience of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and many reviews by the Government Accountability Office have confirmed the vital importance of the Inspector General function in our system of Government. By addressing identified shortcomings and further insulating IGs from inappropriate influence, the legislation we introduce today will make a critical function of Government even more effective. I urge my colleagues to support its prompt consideration and passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007, an important measure to strengthen our domestic defenses against terrorist attacks using explosives. Terror bombings have a long and bloody history around the world and here in the United States. In 1920, for example, an anarchist bombing in front of the New York Stock Exchange killed 38 people and wounded hundreds more. More recently, the 1990s bombings of the World Trade Center and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and attacks in Indonesia, Spain, and Great Britain remind us of the vicious and indiscriminate threat posed by bombs. As Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has noted, they are the weapon of choice for terrorists. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security tell us that threat from these devices is not only real, but growing. Furthermore, the National Intelligence Estimate has identified improvised explosive devices or IEDs as a significant homeland-security threat. As recent years' bombings demonstrate, the costs of inadequate precautions can be horrendous. And as the threat of bomb attacks by home-grown terrorist rises--witness the plot to bomb the JFK airport in New York--we must be increasingly on guard. Much effort and much funding has been directed to train and equip law-enforcement and other personnel to detect and disrupt bomb plots, yet we still lack a formal, full-fledged national strategy to coordinate and improve the effectiveness of those efforts. The legislation I introduce today will improve our defenses against these weapons. I am proud to be working again with the bill's chief co- sponsor, Senator Joe Lieberman, on this new effort to protect our nation. The bill has also won the support of people directly involved in the fight against the threat of terrorist bombings. They include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board; the National Tactical Officers Association; the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators; the Maine Emergency Management Agency; and the police departments of Bangor and Portland, Maine. The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007 has three main elements: First, the bill will clarify the responsibilities of the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention and authorize $25 million funding in both FY 2009 and 2010, up from the current Senate-passed funding level of $10 million in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill now pending at conference. Our national fight against terrorist bombings is a large and multi- faceted undertaking. It includes screening airline passengers, checking cargo, securing dangerous chemicals, protecting critical infrastructure, promoting research and development of anti-IED technology, and sharing information among Government and private-sector partners. The DHS Office of Bombing Prevention is a leader in this fight. The Collins-Lieberman bill builds on the Office's past efforts. Among other things, the bill designates the Office of Bombing Protection as the lead agency in DHS for combating terrorist explosive attacks; tasks OBP with coordinating national and intergovernmental bombing-prevention activities; and assigns it responsibility for assisting state and local governments and cooperating with the private sector. A key element of Federal assistance is training. Last week, for example, members of several Maine and Connecticut police departments received DHS training and briefings here in Washington, as well as an FBI update, and fresh information on improvised explosive devices. My bill will bring more of that training to the States and make it more accessible to local law-enforcement officers. Second, the bill directs the President to accelerate the release of the National Strategy for Bombing Prevention and to update it every four years. As terrorists' tactics change, we must review and adjust our counter-measures to defeat them. Third, the bill will promote more research and development of counter-explosive technologies and facilitate the transfer of military technologies for domestic anti-terror use. My legislation is badly needed. We need to make sure that bomb squads have the latest and most accurate information on bombing threats. We need to raise awareness of the signs of possible threats, including purchases of pre-cursor materials and other suspicious activities. We need to improve information sharing and coordination of activities among all levels of government as well as the private sector. Under my legislation, the Department of Homeland Security will have the legal authority, the responsibility, and the resources to ensure that state and local law-enforcement personnel receive the training and information they need to protect us. The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007 will give our country important new protections. The need for that protection has been amply demonstrated by repeated acts of savagery, and the threat of terrorist bombs continues to grow. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007, an important measure to strengthen our domestic defenses against terrorist attacks using explosives. Terror bombings have a long and bloody history around the world and here in the United States. In 1920, for example, an anarchist bombing in front of the New York Stock Exchange killed 38 people and wounded hundreds more. More recently, the 1990s bombings of the World Trade Center and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and attacks in Indonesia, Spain, and Great Britain remind us of the vicious and indiscriminate threat posed by bombs. As Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has noted, they are the weapon of choice for terrorists. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security tell us that threat from these devices is not only real, but growing. Furthermore, the National Intelligence Estimate has identified improvised explosive devices or IEDs as a significant homeland-security threat. As recent years' bombings demonstrate, the costs of inadequate precautions can be horrendous. And as the threat of bomb attacks by home-grown terrorist rises--witness the plot to bomb the JFK airport in New York--we must be increasingly on guard. Much effort and much funding has been directed to train and equip law-enforcement and other personnel to detect and disrupt bomb plots, yet we still lack a formal, full-fledged national strategy to coordinate and improve the effectiveness of those efforts. The legislation I introduce today will improve our defenses against these weapons. I am proud to be working again with the bill's chief co- sponsor, Senator Joe Lieberman, on this new effort to protect our nation. The bill has also won the support of people directly involved in the fight against the threat of terrorist bombings. They include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board; the National Tactical Officers Association; the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators; the Maine Emergency Management Agency; and the police departments of Bangor and Portland, Maine. The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007 has three main elements: First, the bill will clarify the responsibilities of the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention and authorize $25 million funding in both FY 2009 and 2010, up from the current Senate-passed funding level of $10 million in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill now pending at conference. Our national fight against terrorist bombings is a large and multi- faceted undertaking. It includes screening airline passengers, checking cargo, securing dangerous chemicals, protecting critical infrastructure, promoting research and development of anti-IED technology, and sharing information among Government and private-sector partners. The DHS Office of Bombing Prevention is a leader in this fight. The Collins-Lieberman bill builds on the Office's past efforts. Among other things, the bill designates the Office of Bombing Protection as the lead agency in DHS for combating terrorist explosive attacks; tasks OBP with coordinating national and intergovernmental bombing-prevention activities; and assigns it responsibility for assisting state and local governments and cooperating with the private sector. A key element of Federal assistance is training. Last week, for example, members of several Maine and Connecticut police departments received DHS training and briefings here in Washington, as well as an FBI update, and fresh information on improvised explosive devices. My bill will bring more of that training to the States and make it more accessible to local law-enforcement officers. Second, the bill directs the President to accelerate the release of the National Strategy for Bombing Prevention and to update it every four years. As terrorists' tactics change, we must review and adjust our counter-measures to defeat them. Third, the bill will promote more research and development of counter-explosive technologies and facilitate the transfer of military technologies for domestic anti-terror use. My legislation is badly needed. We need to make sure that bomb squads have the latest and most accurate information on bombing threats. We need to raise awareness of the signs of possible threats, including purchases of pre-cursor materials and other suspicious activities. We need to improve information sharing and coordination of activities among all levels of government as well as the private sector. Under my legislation, the Department of Homeland Security will have the legal authority, the responsibility, and the resources to ensure that state and local law-enforcement personnel receive the training and information they need to protect us. The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2007 will give our country important new protections. The need for that protection has been amply demonstrated by repeated acts of savagery, and the threat of terrorist bombs continues to grow. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to offer my wholehearted support for the bill offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware to provide some reasonable measure of job protection for the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel who save thousands of lives across this country every year. This bill is a matter of simple fairness. It recognizes that volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel not only serve their own towns and offer mutual assistance to other communities on a day-to-day basis, but also that they are a key component in state and federal plans for responding to catastrophic natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Across the Nation, our emergency planning relies on the ready availability of these brave first responders. Indeed, volunteers are absolutely critical to mounting a response to disasters, both large and small. My home state of Maine, for example, has slightly more than 10,000 firefighters in 492 departments. Because Maine is a mostly rural State, fully 88 percent of those firefighters are volunteers. Yet, even if they are called up in a major disaster or a Presidentially declared emergency under the Stafford Act, these volunteers have no official protection for their jobs while they are answering the call to duty. We should protect volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel who put their lives on the line. The current lack of job protection is dangerous. If large numbers of volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel were terminated or demoted after being called away to a disaster or a series of disasters, recruitment and retention of volunteers could be devastated. The Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act would correct the injustice and mitigate the danger in a measured and responsible way. It would protect the volunteer first responders against termination or demotion by employers if they are called upon to respond to a Presidentially declared emergency or a major disaster for up to 14 workdays. The bill imposes no unreasonable burdens on employers. They are not obliged to pay the volunteers during their absence, and they are entitled to receive official documentation that an absent employee was in fact summoned to and served in a disaster response. Finally, I would note that the bill would facilitate the work of emergency managers. Having this job protection in force would allow them to make operational and contingency plans with greater confidence, knowing that volunteer responders would not be forced to withdraw in short order for fear of losing their jobs. The Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act is a straightforward matter of simple justice and sound policy. By extending some protection to these brave men and women, we can strengthen the protection and life-saving response that they provide to many millions of Americans. I believe this bill merits the support of every Senator, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to offer my wholehearted support for the bill offered by the distinguished Senator from Delaware to provide some reasonable measure of job protection for the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel who save thousands of lives across this country every year. This bill is a matter of simple fairness. It recognizes that volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel not only serve their own towns and offer mutual assistance to other communities on a day-to-day basis, but also that they are a key component in state and federal plans for responding to catastrophic natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Across the Nation, our emergency planning relies on the ready availability of these brave first responders. Indeed, volunteers are absolutely critical to mounting a response to disasters, both large and small. My home state of Maine, for example, has slightly more than 10,000 firefighters in 492 departments. Because Maine is a mostly rural State, fully 88 percent of those firefighters are volunteers. Yet, even if they are called up in a major disaster or a Presidentially declared emergency under the Stafford Act, these volunteers have no official protection for their jobs while they are answering the call to duty. We should protect volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel who put their lives on the line. The current lack of job protection is dangerous. If large numbers of volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel were terminated or demoted after being called away to a disaster or a series of disasters, recruitment and retention of volunteers could be devastated. The Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act would correct the injustice and mitigate the danger in a measured and responsible way. It would protect the volunteer first responders against termination or demotion by employers if they are called upon to respond to a Presidentially declared emergency or a major disaster for up to 14 workdays. The bill imposes no unreasonable burdens on employers. They are not obliged to pay the volunteers during their absence, and they are entitled to receive official documentation that an absent employee was in fact summoned to and served in a disaster response. Finally, I would note that the bill would facilitate the work of emergency managers. Having this job protection in force would allow them to make operational and contingency plans with greater confidence, knowing that volunteer responders would not be forced to withdraw in short order for fear of losing their jobs. The Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act is a straightforward matter of simple justice and sound policy. By extending some protection to these brave men and women, we can strengthen the protection and life-saving response that they provide to many millions of Americans. I believe this bill merits the support of every Senator, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce a bill that would formally establish and enhance the Protective Security Advisor Program Office within the Department of Homeland Security. The PSA program, which operates under the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection, has proven its worth on many occasions. For example, when the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in August of this year, PSAs provided valuable support to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, providing assessments of infrastructure impacts relating to emergency services, postal and shipping operations, public transit, fuel deliveries, public utilities, and rail operations. DHS has deployed more than 70 PSAs in major metropolitan areas around the country. These are skilled and savvy people, averaging more than 20 years of law-enforcement, military, or counter-terror experience. They regularly interact and develop working relationships with Government agencies at all levels and with private-sector entities, and they can be among the first on the scene when disaster strikes. Critical infrastructure is not, however, confined to large urban areas. Yet, 10 States--Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming--do not have a resident PSA dedicated to serving the interests and protecting the citizens of those States. The bill I introduce today will enhance our national preparedness, response capability, and security by providing a minimum Protective Security Advisor presence in every State, while preserving the risk- based principle that provides extra coverage in areas of dense population or concentrated critical infrastructure. The bill will also enhance the PSA program by providing for 10 supervisory PSAs for regional coordination and management, and by authorizing additional PSAs at DHS headquarters. These headquarters PSAs will help manage participation in training and exercises, PSA training and certification programs, and day-to-day operations that help our Nation prevent, respond to, and limit the consequences of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. This bill also will advance the goals of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. It will promote governmental and private-sector efforts to assess risks to and vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure, help stakeholders share information and coordinate activities, assist with multi-jurisdictional planning, and provide counsel to any designated Principal Federal Official when a joint field office must be established. State emergency managers recognize the importance of this legislation. The Maine Emergency Management Agency has already provided a letter of support. Its bipartisan list of cosponsors--Senators Pryor, Sununu, Johnson, Coleman, Biden, Thune, Enzi, and Carper--includes three other members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. These facts attest to the bill's merit. Mr. President, 300 million Americans live in a society that depends on a complex and tightly interrelated network of critical infrastructure and services including food supply, finance, energy, sanitation, transport, and communications. The DHS Protective Security Advisors have demonstrated that they are a critical element of our homeland-security defenses. This bill will expand their numbers, extend their coverage, strengthen their organization, and make all of us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce a bill that would formally establish and enhance the Protective Security Advisor Program Office within the Department of Homeland Security. The PSA program, which operates under the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection, has proven its worth on many occasions. For example, when the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in August of this year, PSAs provided valuable support to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, providing assessments of infrastructure impacts relating to emergency services, postal and shipping operations, public transit, fuel deliveries, public utilities, and rail operations. DHS has deployed more than 70 PSAs in major metropolitan areas around the country. These are skilled and savvy people, averaging more than 20 years of law-enforcement, military, or counter-terror experience. They regularly interact and develop working relationships with Government agencies at all levels and with private-sector entities, and they can be among the first on the scene when disaster strikes. Critical infrastructure is not, however, confined to large urban areas. Yet, 10 States--Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming--do not have a resident PSA dedicated to serving the interests and protecting the citizens of those States. The bill I introduce today will enhance our national preparedness, response capability, and security by providing a minimum Protective Security Advisor presence in every State, while preserving the risk- based principle that provides extra coverage in areas of dense population or concentrated critical infrastructure. The bill will also enhance the PSA program by providing for 10 supervisory PSAs for regional coordination and management, and by authorizing additional PSAs at DHS headquarters. These headquarters PSAs will help manage participation in training and exercises, PSA training and certification programs, and day-to-day operations that help our Nation prevent, respond to, and limit the consequences of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. This bill also will advance the goals of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. It will promote governmental and private-sector efforts to assess risks to and vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure, help stakeholders share information and coordinate activities, assist with multi-jurisdictional planning, and provide counsel to any designated Principal Federal Official when a joint field office must be established. State emergency managers recognize the importance of this legislation. The Maine Emergency Management Agency has already provided a letter of support. Its bipartisan list of cosponsors--Senators Pryor, Sununu, Johnson, Coleman, Biden, Thune, Enzi, and Carper--includes three other members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. These facts attest to the bill's merit. Mr. President, 300 million Americans live in a society that depends on a complex and tightly interrelated network of critical infrastructure and services including food supply, finance, energy, sanitation, transport, and communications. The DHS Protective Security Advisors have demonstrated that they are a critical element of our homeland-security defenses. This bill will expand their numbers, extend their coverage, strengthen their organization, and make all of us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This bill will address the most significant environmental challenge facing our country and I want to add my praise to that already heard of the two leaders, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I am convinced this bill does represent a tipping point because of the coalition brought together to advance this bill. The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the human contribution to climate change. According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already increased global temperatures and likely contributed to more extreme weather events such as drought and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, and other societal problems. In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face, and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I am truly excited about this coalition. Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his longstanding leadership, for working with Members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warner's commitment to taking on this cause gives me much hope that for the first time we are actually going to get a bill through that is going to make a difference. This bipartisan bill presents a practical, economically sound approach to reducing America's greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent over 2005 levels by the year 2050. I also thank Senator Coleman for his contributions to this bill, for making sure that we looked at the economic impact, particularly on low- income families. I have observed in person the dramatic effects of climate change. I have had the opportunity to be briefed by the most preeminent experts in this field. On a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I learned more about the groundbreaking research done by scientists from the University of Maine. One of those professors, a distinguished National Academy of Sciences member, George Denton, toured parts of sites in New Zealand with us. He showed us sites that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century but are now ice free. Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. The melting is even more dramatic in the northern hemisphere. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice covering an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. At this rate that area is going to be ice free by the year 2050. In Barrow, AK, I witnessed the impact of the melting permafrost. I saw telephone poles that had been planted decades ago in the permafrost that are now leaning over. I talked to native people who told me they were seeing insects that they have never seen that far north; that there has been an extraordinary change in the pattern of fish spawning in the area. These are dramatic changes. The time has come to take meaningful action to respond to climate change--not only talk about it but to pass legislation. My colleagues have worked so hard to develop this legislation that will preserve our environment for future generations while providing reasonable, achievable emission reduction goals, offsets, and incentives for the industries covered by this bill. The America's Climate Security Act covers U.S. electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that together account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It requires these sectors to reduce their emissions to 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. I am pleased that the bill also strengthens energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and sets aside credits and funding to deploy advanced technologies for reducing emissions and helps protect low- and middle-income Americans from higher energy costs. Let me conclude my remarks by again applauding the leadership and the hard work of my colleagues from Connecticut and Virginia. I urge all of our colleagues to consider joining us on this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This bill will address the most significant environmental challenge facing our country and I want to add my praise to that already heard of the two leaders, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I am convinced this bill does represent a tipping point because of the coalition brought together to advance this bill. The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the human contribution to climate change. According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already increased global temperatures and likely contributed to more extreme weather events such as drought and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, and other societal problems. In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face, and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I am truly excited about this coalition. Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his longstanding leadership, for working with Members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warner's commitment to taking on this cause gives me much hope that for the first time we are actually going to get a bill through that is going to make a difference. This bipartisan bill presents a practical, economically sound approach to reducing America's greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent over 2005 levels by the year 2050. I also thank Senator Coleman for his contributions to this bill, for making sure that we looked at the economic impact, particularly on low- income families. I have observed in person the dramatic effects of climate change. I have had the opportunity to be briefed by the most preeminent experts in this field. On a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I learned more about the groundbreaking research done by scientists from the University of Maine. One of those professors, a distinguished National Academy of Sciences member, George Denton, toured parts of sites in New Zealand with us. He showed us sites that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century but are now ice free. Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. The melting is even more dramatic in the northern hemisphere. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice covering an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. At this rate that area is going to be ice free by the year 2050. In Barrow, AK, I witnessed the impact of the melting permafrost. I saw telephone poles that had been planted decades ago in the permafrost that are now leaning over. I talked to native people who told me they were seeing insects that they have never seen that far north; that there has been an extraordinary change in the pattern of fish spawning in the area. These are dramatic changes. The time has come to take meaningful action to respond to climate change--not only talk about it but to pass legislation. My colleagues have worked so hard to develop this legislation that will preserve our environment for future generations while providing reasonable, achievable emission reduction goals, offsets, and incentives for the industries covered by this bill. The America's Climate Security Act covers U.S. electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that together account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It requires these sectors to reduce their emissions to 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. I am pleased that the bill also strengthens energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and sets aside credits and funding to deploy advanced technologies for reducing emissions and helps protect low- and middle-income Americans from higher energy costs. Let me conclude my remarks by again applauding the leadership and the hard work of my colleagues from Connecticut and Virginia. I urge all of our colleagues to consider joining us on this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Casey, Bond, Cantwell, Roberts and Reed in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act, to prevent the devastating 11.75 percent cut that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, is planning to make in Medicare home health payment rates over the next 4 years. 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 that the Medicare home health benefit is once again under attack. The House version of the SCHIP reauthorization bill proposed cutting Medicare home health spending by $2.6 billion over 5 years, and the Senate may soon be considering similar cuts. To make matters worse, CMS has proposed additional administrative cuts that are estimated to total more than $6 billion over the next 5 years. If allowed to go forward, this ``double whammy'' for home care will result in cuts in excess of $8.6 billion over 5 years from a program that costs less than $15 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 administrative cuts 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 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 earlier could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. These administrative cuts are proposed to go into effect on January l. This would be devastating to home health agencies in Maine and across the Nation, particularly given that there is no evidence of intentional ``gaming'' on the part of home health agencies to warrant such a severe financial penalty. Moreover, CMS has not made public any of the details of the research method, data and findings they used to justify the planned cuts, making it impossible for Congress or the public to evaluate the reliability or the validity of its actions. What is of most concern to me, however, is that this unfair penalty 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 fact is that the Medicare home health benefit has already taken a larger hit in spending cuts over the past 10 years than any other Medicare benefit. In fact, home health as a share of Medicare spending has dropped from 8.7 percent in 1997 to 3.2 percent today, and is projected to decline to 2.6 percent of Medicare spending in 2015. This downward spiral in home health spending began with provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which resulted in a 50 percent cut in Medicare home health spending by 2001--far more than the Congress intended or the Congressional Budget Office projected. And home health spending continues to be much lower than CBO projections. In 2000, the CBO projected that home health spending in 2006 would total $21.1 billion under the new home health prospective payment system. The actual total expenditures for home health last year were $13.2 billion. If home health agencies were engaging in the kind of widespread ``upcoding'' that CMS has alleged, home health spending would be exceeding CBO's projections. In fact, home health spending has been far less than expected. 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. They will also place the quality of home health services at risk, particularly given ever-rising transportation, staffing, and technology costs. Cuts of this magnitude could leave some providers with no alternative but to reduce the number of home health visits or patient admissions, which would ultimately threaten seniors' access to care and clinical outcomes. Or they could cause them to close their doors altogether. The legislation that we are introducing today will block the ``case mix creep'' cuts that were proposed by CMS as part of the final home health prospective payment system regulation in August. It will also establish a reliable and transparent process that the Department of Health and Human Services must use to justify that payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring.'' A companion bill to our legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Jim McGovern. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2007 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 am pleased to join Senators Casey, Bond, Cantwell, Roberts and Reed in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act, to prevent the devastating 11.75 percent cut that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, is planning to make in Medicare home health payment rates over the next 4 years. 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 that the Medicare home health benefit is once again under attack. The House version of the SCHIP reauthorization bill proposed cutting Medicare home health spending by $2.6 billion over 5 years, and the Senate may soon be considering similar cuts. To make matters worse, CMS has proposed additional administrative cuts that are estimated to total more than $6 billion over the next 5 years. If allowed to go forward, this ``double whammy'' for home care will result in cuts in excess of $8.6 billion over 5 years from a program that costs less than $15 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 administrative cuts 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 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 earlier could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. These administrative cuts are proposed to go into effect on January l. This would be devastating to home health agencies in Maine and across the Nation, particularly given that there is no evidence of intentional ``gaming'' on the part of home health agencies to warrant such a severe financial penalty. Moreover, CMS has not made public any of the details of the research method, data and findings they used to justify the planned cuts, making it impossible for Congress or the public to evaluate the reliability or the validity of its actions. What is of most concern to me, however, is that this unfair penalty 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 fact is that the Medicare home health benefit has already taken a larger hit in spending cuts over the past 10 years than any other Medicare benefit. In fact, home health as a share of Medicare spending has dropped from 8.7 percent in 1997 to 3.2 percent today, and is projected to decline to 2.6 percent of Medicare spending in 2015. This downward spiral in home health spending began with provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which resulted in a 50 percent cut in Medicare home health spending by 2001--far more than the Congress intended or the Congressional Budget Office projected. And home health spending continues to be much lower than CBO projections. In 2000, the CBO projected that home health spending in 2006 would total $21.1 billion under the new home health prospective payment system. The actual total expenditures for home health last year were $13.2 billion. If home health agencies were engaging in the kind of widespread ``upcoding'' that CMS has alleged, home health spending would be exceeding CBO's projections. In fact, home health spending has been far less than expected. 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. They will also place the quality of home health services at risk, particularly given ever-rising transportation, staffing, and technology costs. Cuts of this magnitude could leave some providers with no alternative but to reduce the number of home health visits or patient admissions, which would ultimately threaten seniors' access to care and clinical outcomes. Or they could cause them to close their doors altogether. The legislation that we are introducing today will block the ``case mix creep'' cuts that were proposed by CMS as part of the final home health prospective payment system regulation in August. It will also establish a reliable and transparent process that the Department of Health and Human Services must use to justify that payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring.'' A companion bill to our legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Jim McGovern. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2007 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 to speak in strong support of the $10 million in the Senate fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act for the landmark Penobscot River Restoration Project, the most significant river restoration project ever in the eastern United States. I was pleased to work with my colleague from Maine to secure funding for this important environmental restoration project. This funding will provide significant federal cost-share toward the purchase of three hydropower dams on the Penobscot River that are slated for removal. When the project is complete, nearly 1,000 miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and other fish species will be restored. Atlantic salmon populations have declined drastically in the last 200 years, from an estimated half million adult salmon returning to U.S. rivers each year in the early 1800s to as few as 1,000 in 2001. The National Academy of Sciences completed a report in 2004 on Atlantic salmon in Maine which identified several specific threats to the recovery of Maine's salmon populations. Top among them was the obstructed passage and habitat degradation caused by dams. The National Academy of Sciences recommended that dam removal projects are precisely what is needed to best enhance Atlantic salmon populations. The Penobscot River Restoration Project represents such a comprehensive effort and is one of the largest, most creative river restoration projects in our Nation's history. In fact, Interior Secretary Kempthorne highlighted the project as a successful example of cooperative conservation during his September 20, 2006, visit to Brewer, ME. The 5-year, $50 million project would restore the natural flow of Maine's largest watershed. This project is a partnership of the State of Maine, local communities, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, PPL Corporation, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and other environmental groups. In addition to enhancing Atlantic salmon recovery efforts, it will also have far-ranging benefits for the entire Gulf of Maine, protecting endangered species, migratory birds, and a diversity of riverine and estuarine wetlands. Finally, the project will help revive the social, cultural, and economic traditions of New England's second largest river. The merits of this project are demonstrated by the fact that it has attracted both federal and private support. The federal government has already contributed $5.5 million to this important project, and a private fundraising campaign recently reached its goal of raising $10 million. I congratulate the Penobscot River Restoration Trust for its outstanding efforts to secure funding for this critical project. Their dedication and commitment, sustained over years of effort, have helped bring the project closer to completion. The Penobscot River Restoration Project is a critical environmental restoration project. Including the $10 million in the final FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill is crucial to ensure the success of the project. I urge swift passage of the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for a program sponsored by the U.S. Navy, which will significantly streamline the process for planning and executing repair and modernization of our submarine fleet at our naval shipyards. The Improved Engineering Design Process uses advanced 3-D digital scanning techniques to accurately capture the ``as is'' layout of specific ship spaces that will be impacted in the repair process. These digital 3-D images can then be easily shared to allow collaboration among our public shipyards to facilitate greater efficiency in planning and executing repairs and modernization. Because of the high operating tempo of our fleet, it is essential that we find ways to accomplish these repairs faster and return our submarines to operational readiness more quickly. I understand that implementation of this process in our public shipyards has the potential to produce annual savings of $30 million. I ask the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee if he would agree such a program should be further developed and implemented as quickly as possible?

Ms. COLLINS. The distinguished ranking member makes a very important point regarding the need for pursuing initiatives of this kind so that our scarce dollars can go further. I understand that the Navy believes strongly in the merits of this program and has considered this program for inclusion in future budget requests. I encourage the Navy to not only include it in its budget request, but to also identify existing funds that may be applied to keeping this program moving forward. In addition, I ask the committee ranking member to join me in encouraging the Navy to continue supporting this critical program and, if possible, to identify potential fiscal year 2008 funds that could be made available as we finalize those budget deliberations. I thank the Senator for his interest in and support for this important initiative.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation that will extend and increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. One of the very first bills I cosponsored as a new Member of the Senate back in 1997 was the legislation that first established the SCHIP program. I remember Senator Hatch coming to talk to me about this bill and enlisting my support for it. I am very happy I was one of the original cosponsors of the SCHIP bill. This program provides much needed health care coverage for children of low-income parents who simply cannot afford the cost of health insurance and do not get health insurance through the workplace; yet they make a little bit too much money to qualify for the State's Medicaid Program. Since 1997, the SCHIP program has contributed to more than a one- third decline in the number of uninsured low-income children. That is a tremendous success. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would vote against an extension, a modest expansion, of what has been such a highly successful and effective program. Today, an estimated 6.6 million children, including more than 14,500 in the State of Maine, receive health care coverage through this program. Still, as this legislation recognizes, there is more we can do to further decrease the number of uninsured low-income children. While the State of Maine ranks among the top four States in reducing the number of uninsured children, we still have more than 20,000 children who don't have coverage. Nationally, about 9 million children remain uninsured. Unfortunately, the authorization for the SCHIP program, which has done so much to help low-income children in working families obtain the health care they need, is about to expire. That is why I encourage and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I commend the Senate conferees on this bill. They did a very good job of coming up with a very reasonable proposal--a proposal that costs less than the House version and yet will make a real difference to low- income uninsured children. I would point out that this is a bipartisan bill. On the cloture vote earlier today, it had overwhelming support, as 69 Senators voted to proceed with the vote on this bill. The legislation that is before us will increase funding for the SCHIP program by $35 billion over the next 5 years--a level which is sufficient to maintain the coverage for the 6.6 million children currently enrolled, as well as to expand the coverage so that we can reach more children who are currently uninsured. In the State of Maine, the bill before us will allow us to cover an additional 11,000 low- income children who are currently eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled. The bill also improves the program in a number of important ways. Like Senator Domenici, I am very pleased that the bill includes a requirement for States to offer mental health services through their SCHIP program. Treating behavioral and emotional problems and mental illness while children are young--early intervention--can make such a difference. I know from hearings I have held in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the current systems for providing mental health care to children are woefully inadequate. The result is oftentimes parents are faced with a horrible choice of giving up custody of their children in order to secure the treatment they need for serious mental illnesses. That is a choice no parent should ever have to make. We also need to improve oral health care, dental health care for children, and this bill will do just that. Despite the demonstrated need, children's dental coverage offered by States isn't always what it should be. Low-income and rural children suffer disproportionately from oral health problems. In fact, 80 percent of all tooth decay is found in just 25 percent of children--80 percent of the problems in 25 percent of the kids. That is simply because they don't have access to oral hygiene, they don't have access to dentists and dental hygienists who could help ensure their health. I am very pleased, therefore, that the bill before us will strengthen the dental coverage offered through SCHIP to ensure that more low-income children have access to the dental services they need to prevent disease and promote good oral health. Finally, the bill will eliminate the State shortfall problems that have plagued the SCHIP program as well as provide additional incentives to encourage States to increase outreach and enrollment, particularly of the lowest income children. The bill before us today is the prescription for good health for millions of our Nation's low-income children in working families. That is why I am so disappointed that the President has threatened a veto of this legislation. I just do not understand his decision, and I think it could be a terrible mistake. This important program can simply not be allowed to expire. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting it. Let me make one final point. I have heard a lot of our colleagues on my side of the aisle argue that we need a far more extensive debate on health care policy in this country, and they are right. But we should not hold the SCHIP program hostage to that broader debate. We do need a broader debate. We need a broader debate on how to lessen the number of uninsured Americans, which now exceeds 45 million Americans. We need a broader debate on how to help our small businesses better afford the cost of health insurance for their employees. We need a broader debate on how we can effectively use the Tax Code to help subsidize the cost of insurance for those who don't receive insurance through the workplace. I hope Senate leaders will charge the relevant committees to undertake a couple of months of hearings to bring together the best minds possible and then dedicate a month of debate on the Senate floor to a wide variety of solutions to both promote broader access to health care, to help our uninsured better afford health coverage, and to improve the quality of health care in this country. That is an important and overdue debate. In fact, the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and I have, for several Congresses, introduced a broad health care bill with these goals in mind. Let us not jeopardize the existence of a successful, effective program for low-income children because we want to have that broader debate. Let's send this bill to the President. Let's urge him to sign it into law, and then let's turn our attention to this long, overdue, much needed debate. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chair of the committee for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the conference report for the Water Resources Development Act. This legislation authorizes important studies and projects to protect and maintain water resources throughout our country. I am especially pleased that the conference report includes $26.9 million for Camp Ellis, ME. More than 100 years ago, the Army Corps built a jetty extending out from the Saco River, adjacent to Camp Ellis Beach. This jetty altered the pattern of currents and sand and it is the primary cause of the devastating erosion at Camp Ellis. The extent of the erosion is truly shocking. Some 36 houses have been washed into the sea in the last 100 years. The 1998 shoreline is 400 feet from where the shoreline stood in 1908. The houses that are now in danger were once six or more houses back from the sea. In April of this year, a devastating Patriot's Day storm hit Maine with heavy winds and a great deal of rain. This terrible storm, the worst natural disaster to strike Maine since the ice storm of 1998, caused massive storm surges, astronomically high tides, and inland and coastal flooding. Let me show my colleagues some of the evidence of the devastation that was caused by this April storm. As you can see, this is the road that follows along the waterfront. It was utterly devastated. In another picture I will show my colleagues, this is what happened to some of the houses that were along the waterfront. As you can see, they were completely destroyed as the water took out the foundations and caused terrible destruction. That is a power pole that has been thrown down by the storm. In yet another example, a house has been absolutely ruined as a result of this storm. Now, when the jetty was first constructed 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we do now, and no one predicted the terrible impact. The incredible force of the ocean during the storm earlier this year literally washed out the foundations of the homes. The street that once ran along the ocean front was largely destroyed, leaving nothing between the remaining homes and the open ocean. Many homeowners in the area were still dealing with flooded basements for weeks following the storm. This was a vivid reminder of the terrible impact a powerful storm can have on those who live in this vulnerable community. The sea has advanced such that another large storm could wash out the peninsula altogether and turn Camp Ellis into an island. That, obviously, would be devastating to the people who live there. We know what must be done to prevent such a calamity. Studies undertaken at the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that an offshore breakwater and a spur coming off the jetty are likely to be needed to protect Camp Ellis from further erosion and the destruction of even more property. The Camp Ellis jetty was built by the Federal Government at a time when the erosional impacts of shoreline structures were largely unknown. The jetty has served its important navigational purpose well over the 100-plus years of its existence, but now it is time for the Federal Government to make good on its obligation to help those people who have been harmed by the structure the Federal Government built in the first place. With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we will finally have authorized the funds necessary to act upon the best available science and to fully and finally protect the residents of Camp Ellis. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, and again I thank the committee for being responsive to the concerns of the people of Maine. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier today, the President announced his intention to veto the extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program bill. I believe such a veto would be a terrible mistake. One of the very first bills I cosponsored when I first came to the Senate was legislation to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP as it has become known. It provides health care coverage for children in families where the parents do not have sufficient income to purchase health insurance and are not getting health insurance in the workplace, and yet they make a bit too much money to qualify for coverage under the State's Medicaid program. So these low-income children in working families have been falling through the cracks. That is why this law has been so important. I remember it well that Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Rockefeller all came up to me to enlist my support. I was very eager to sign on as one of the original cosponsors of this law because I knew it could make such a positive difference. Indeed, it has. Since 1997, the SCHIP program has contributed to a one-third decline in the rate of uninsured low-income children. Today, an estimated 6.6 million children, including more than 14,500 children living in Maine, receive health care coverage through this program. Still, there is more we could do. While Maine ranks among the top four States in reducing the number of uninsured children, we still have more than 20,000 children in our State who lack coverage. Nationally, about 9 million children remain uninsured. That is why I was so pleased to hear the conferees appeared to be very near to an agreement that is modeled on the legislation that passed the Senate in August with strong bipartisan support, in fact, by a vote of 68 to 31. Our Senate bill increases funding for the SCHIP program by $35 million over the next 5 years, a level that is sufficient to maintain coverage for all 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and it would also allow the program to expand to cover an additional 3.3 million low-income children. In Maine, this legislation would allow us to cover an additional 11,000 low-income children who are currently eligible for the SCHIP program but not enrolled. I urge the administration to take a second look at the Senate bill, the bill that is the basis for the conference agreement. This legislation has made a real difference in the lives of working families with low-income children across this country. It is helping to ensure these children grow up to be healthy adults. Surely, we can get this done on a bipartisan basis before the program is scheduled to expire on September 30. I urge the President of the United States to reconsider his threat to veto this vital program, this highly successful program that has a proven track record of reducing the number of children who lack health insurance. If the President does proceed to veto the bill, I will vote to override his veto. Surely, this bill has a track record that has made a real difference to low-income children in working families. We simply cannot allow this program to expire. The extension and expansion we are proposing will enable us to more fully cover these children.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. It is a measure introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch and favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia-- citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for the House that meets in their midst. S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah. That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State performing their religious duty as missionaries. As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution. Those powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing that our committee conducted on this bill. We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves, including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal- representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights cases. I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars, have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge. Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our Federal courts. My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate. This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House representation to population, but it links Senate representation to statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to- conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is not a partisan measure. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of fundamental fairness for American citizens. Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds, that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of Columbia. I hope my colleagues will allow this bill to go forward, and I urge their support of this measure.

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce Senate Bill 2003, a measure that will enhance the Federal Government's ability to perform its duties capably and economically as it faces a wave of retirement of highly experienced Federal employees. When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce. On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches 3 million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years. Federal agencies, which already must hire more than 250,000 new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and State and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements. The baby boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers uniquely possess. Human-resources research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management. Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis. Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive embedded in current law. Title 5 of the United States Code currently mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with the welcome cosponsorship of Senators Warner and Voinovich would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides a limited opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment. This simple but powerful reform is a priority item for the Federal Office of Personnel Management. As OPM Director Linda Springer has said, ``Modifying the rules to bring talented retirees back to the Government on a part-time basis without penalizing their annuity would allow Federal agencies to rehire recently retired employees to assist with short-term projects, fill critical skill gaps and train the next generation of Federal employees.'' Organizations endorsing the reform contemplated in my bill include the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government. I would note two important points about the bill. First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first 6 months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 6,240 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of 8-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 780 days, respectively. These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment. of annuitants. I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be costs unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings. This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce Senate Bill 2003, a measure that will enhance the Federal Government's ability to perform its duties capably and economically as it faces a wave of retirement of highly experienced Federal employees. When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce. On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches 3 million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years. Federal agencies, which already must hire more than 250,000 new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and State and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements. The baby boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers uniquely possess. Human-resources research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management. Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis. Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive embedded in current law. Title 5 of the United States Code currently mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with the welcome cosponsorship of Senators Warner and Voinovich would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides a limited opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment. This simple but powerful reform is a priority item for the Federal Office of Personnel Management. As OPM Director Linda Springer has said, ``Modifying the rules to bring talented retirees back to the Government on a part-time basis without penalizing their annuity would allow Federal agencies to rehire recently retired employees to assist with short-term projects, fill critical skill gaps and train the next generation of Federal employees.'' Organizations endorsing the reform contemplated in my bill include the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government. I would note two important points about the bill. First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first 6 months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 6,240 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of 8-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 780 days, respectively. These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment. of annuitants. I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be costs unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings. This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support it.