Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11/2001--terrorist attacks that killed some 3,000 people--I authored legislation, along with former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to reform and restructure the intelligence community, to improve its capabilities, and also to increase accountability and oversight. Now, this law is different and distinct from the PATRIOT Act. Our law established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all of the agencies involved in intelligence gathering so that we would reduce the possibility of the dots not being connected and to allow terrorist attacks and plots to be detected and thwarted. Our legislation also created the National Counterterrorism Center, which helps to synthesize the information across government and share it with State and local governments to help keep us safer. Our bill created the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and it installed privacy officers in the major intelligence agencies. But our law, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act, shared the common goal of the PATRIOT Act of better protecting our Nation from terrorist attacks because none of us who lived through that terrible day ever wanted to see Americans die again because our Nation failed to use the tools and capabilities it had to prevent terrorist attacks. We have had terrorist attacks since that time. The Boston Marathon is an example of a terrorist attack that occurred despite our best efforts, but we have been able to thwart and uncover and detect and stop terrorist attacks--both here and abroad--due to the important tools and capabilities our government has. Like the Presiding Officer, I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have sat through countless hours of briefings, I have asked the hard questions about our intelligence programs, and I have challenged those who have come before us. I wish to explain how the current program works at NSA because I believe there is so much misinformation about this important program. One of the most egregious misinformation points that have been made is that the NSA is listening to the content of calls made by American citizens to other American citizens. That is simply not true. Let me tell you how this program works. First, it starts with a call, a phone number from a foreign terrorist or a foreign terrorist organization. When we get a foreign terrorist's--who is based overseas--telephone number, the NSA is allowed to query a database to see if that foreign-based terrorist is calling someone in our country. Why is that important? Well, we know ISIS and other terrorist groups have been recruiting Americans and trying to train them to attack our country. That is why it is important. Only 34 highly trained, vetted Federal employees are allowed to query that database, and even then they are allowed to do so only if a Federal judge finds that a standard has been reached to allow that query to be made. Even if that query is approved by that Federal judge, the analyst can only see the phone numbers called by the terrorist, the date, the time, and the duration of the call. If there is a match, then the case is turned over to the FBI for further investigation. The FBI must get a court order to wiretap the phone of the American who is talking to that foreign terrorist. Last month, during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, I asked the Attorney General whether there have ever been any privacy violations regarding that telephone data. She replied no. I am truly perplexed that anyone would argue that telephone data are better protected in the hands of 1,400 telecom companies and 160 wireless carriers than in a secure NSA database that only 34 carefully vetted and trained employees are allowed to query under the supervision of a Federal judge. Under the USA FREEDOM Act--the House bill--when we get the telephone number of an overseas terrorist, we potentially are going to have to go to each one of those 1,400 telecom companies, 160 wireless carriers, which potentially will involve thousands of people. The privacy implications are far greater if we have the telecoms control the data, far greater. Moreover, we know private sector data is far more susceptible to hackers, to criminals. Look at all the breaches of sensitive data that have occurred during the past year alone. Plus, I simply don't think the system will work without a data-retention requirement now that most carriers have flat-rate telephone plans that don't require detailed call data records. The telecom companies have made very clear they will oppose any bill with a data-retention requirement, and there will be a race to the bottom to market the data in a way that says to people: Sign up with us and your data will be safe from the government. That kind of demagoguery--even though the commerce committee has done an excellent study that shows the data broker companies sell our personal data, including our names, our phone numbers, our addresses to the highest bidder for telemarketing and other purposes, and some of that data ends up in the hands of con artists. So I don't see how vesting the authority in the telecom communications companies increases the privacy of our data, safeguards it. I think just the opposite is the case. It is going to be less secure because it is going to be more exposed to hackers and criminals who will attempt to do data breaches and have successfully done so. It is going to be less secure because instead of 34 people having access to just the phone numbers and call duration data, we are going to have potentially thousands of people who are going to be asked to query their database. The system is going to be less effective because there is absolutely no guarantee this data will be retained by the telecom companies and the wireless carriers. Finally, I am persuaded by the cautions given to us, by the direct warnings of former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller and the former Deputy Director of the CIA Mike Morell, who tell us that had this program been in place prior to 9/11, it is likely that terrorist plot would have been uncovered and thwarted. The fact is the House bill substantially weakens a vital tool in our counterterrorism efforts at a time when the terrorist threat has never been higher. The current program has never been abused. The government cannot listen to your phone calls or read your emails unless there is a court order--because you are directly communicating with an overseas terrorist--and then it goes to the FBI for investigation. It is a false choice that we have to choose between our civil liberties and keeping our country safe. There are actions we can and should take to strengthen the privacy protections in the NSA program. Several were included in the bipartisan bill reported by the Intelligence Committee last year. Unfortunately, the USA FREEDOM Act provides a false sense of privacy at the expense of our national security. For these reasons, while I will support the amendments today to try to make modest improvements to the House bill, I simply cannot support the bill on final passage. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of trade adjustment assistance, which is included in the bill we are now considering. I urge my colleagues to oppose any attempt to curtail this vital program. Trade adjustment assistance--better known as TAA--plays an essential role in helping hard-working Americans who through no fault of their own lose their jobs as the result of what is often unfair foreign competition. TAA programs enable displaced workers to acquire the new skills, the new training necessary to prepare for jobs in other industries. I am proud to have authored the bipartisan legislation with Senator Ron Wyden to reauthorize TAA that is included in the bill before us. Our legislation forms the basis of the TAA provisions that are included in this bill. Maine workers have been hit particularly hard by mill closures and shuttered factories. In the last 15 years, Maine has lost 38 percent of its manufacturing jobs, nearly 31,000 jobs in total. While not all of those job losses are due to increased and unfair foreign competition, there is no doubt that workers in the manufacturing sector in Maine have been harmed by the outsourcing of their good-paying jobs to countries with much lower wages and environmental standards. This last year was particularly difficult for workers in Maine's pulp and paper industry. In just the past year alone, the communities of Lincoln, East Millinocket, and Bucksport have all experienced devastating job losses due to the closures of paper mills. Those mills have been the financial anchors of those small towns, providing good jobs for generations of families. The second- and third-order economic effects on other businesses and their employees in those small communities are also significant. In times of such great upheaval, laid-off employees need the time, the support, and the resources to learn the skills that will enable them to seek and secure new employment opportunities. These are skilled Americans who are eager to get back to work and who, with the right training, support, and opportunity, can find new jobs in in-demand fields. Just this spring, I visited the Eastern Maine Community College in Bangor. I had the opportunity to talk with a group of students who are former employees of the Verso paper mill in Bucksport, which closed down last year completely unexpectedly. It was a huge and terrible surprise to the workers and to the community and surrounding area. But because of trade adjustment assistance, these former workers with whom I talked are now enrolled in a fine-furniture making program and are learning new skills for new jobs. I was so impressed with their determination and their attitude. It is very difficult, if you have not been in school for decades, to enroll in a whole new field of study, but that is exactly what these laid-off workers were doing. Their determination to start new careers after years of working at the mill in Bucksport was inspiring. Each of them was enrolled thanks to the support provided by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Without that program, they would not have had the funding, the support, and the resources necessary to enable them to do a midlife career change. Similarly, last year in Lincoln, ME, I met a woman who had spent many years working at the local tissue mill. This mill had a cycle of ups and downs over the years. When it was closed for a time years ago, this woman was thrown out of work, but her story had a happy ending. Through TAA, she was able to learn new skills and find employment as a nursing home administrator, where she has been happily employed for a decade. It took a lot of courage for this woman who had been employed as a mill worker for many years to go into an entirely new career field, but she did so. She encouraged her fellow workers to recognize that through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, they too could find new skills, retrain in an area completely different from the work they had been doing, and have a happy ending. Her story was inspiring. Because of TAA, for 10 years she has been providing for her family and contributing to her community. What a great return on investment. It would not have been possible without TAA. There are many more success stories like this one. I thank Secretary Perez for expediting the TAA assistance these workers who are newly displaced have needed. I would also note that since Maine is the State with the oldest median age in the Nation, this woman really picked a very good field in which to enroll. As a nursing home administrator, her skills are going to be in demand as we see the changing demographics not only of the State of Maine but of our Nation. TAA programs have made a tremendous difference in the lives of those I have described, in the lives of those working in trade-affected industries in Maine, such as pulp and paper manufacturing, textile, and shoe production. In fiscal year 2013 alone, more than 700 Mainers have benefited from the TAA programs, and more than 70 percent of the TAA participants in Maine have found employment within 3 months of completing their retraining programs made possible by TAA. Even more encouraging, of these participants who found employment, more than 90 percent were still employed in their new jobs 6 months later. Without TAA, it is very unlikely that would have happened. Assisting American workers who are negatively affected by international trade--particularly when they are competing with workers with lower wages in countries with lower wages and lower environmental standards or none at all--is vitally important and the right thing to do. In Maine, the effects of free-trade agreements have been decidedly mixed. While some past agreements have brought benefits to my State in the form of lowered tariffs on Maine products such as potatoes, lobster, and wild blueberries, jobs in many other industries have suffered terrible losses as a result of unfair foreign competition. Our workers are the best in the world, and they can compete when there is a level playing field, but oftentimes they are competing against industries in developing countries that are paying lower wages, that don't have to comply with any kind of environmental standards, and that are often subsidized by those governments--and that is not fair. The least we can do is to reauthorize the trade adjustment programs which are successfully helping to retrain and reemploy American workers. That is a commonsense way we can help workers recover from the blows inflicted by some unfair trade agreements, so these Americans can start new jobs and new lives with fresh skills. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of trade adjustment assistance and to oppose any amendments to end these vital programs. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2252, which has been received from the House.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to better tailor the HUBZone program to meet the needs of communities affected by the closure of U.S. military installations through the Base Closure and Realignment, or BRAC, process. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator King, in introducing this legislation, the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2015. This issue hits close to home for both Senator King and me. When Loring Air Force Base closed in 1994 through the BRAC process, my home of Aroostook County lost 15 percent of its population. Senator King lives in Brunswick, ME, which also experienced a considerable drop in population when it lost a major naval air station in 2011. Military bases are often the economic heart of the towns and cities in which they are located, and communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities as the redevelopment process is often lengthy and riddled with bureaucratic hurdles. In recognition of these challenges, Congress passed legislation providing HUBZone status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. This status allows small businesses located on former military bases or in ``economically distressed communities'' with high rates of poverty or unemployment to obtain certain Federal contracting preferences. According to the Small Business Administration, there are currently 107 BRAC-related HUBZones in the U.S. Unfortunately, for many of the communities surrounding closed military bases, HUBZone status has not always had the intended effect. One of the reasons is simple. The law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the closed base. When combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business live within the HUBZone, redevelopment efforts are slowed or stalled. Very few people actually live on these former bases, making it difficult, if not impossible, for businesses and job seekers alike to meet the HUBZone requirements. We have seen this very situation play out following the closure of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, which closed as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, lost more than 2,400 military and civilian personnel. These two towns have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing these jobs has taken a significant economic toll. Because so few people live within the actual boundaries of the former naval air station, its HUBZone designation does not provide the help these communities need. To address this first concern, our legislation would permit prospective employees who live just outside of the boundaries of the closed base to count toward the 35 percent requirement. Employees who live in the census tracts touching the boundaries of the closed base, and in census tracts that touch those census tracts, would be included, providing a large enough pool of potential workers for qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone. A second reason that businesses have difficulty benefiting from the HUBZone program is because closed bases are given HUBZone status for a limited time, only 5 years. Local economic development agencies working to attract new businesses to a former base cannot begin until a base is closed, and this process can take many years. Because HUBZone preferences only apply for 5 years from closure, businesses often lose years of program eligibility. In fact, the Association of Defense Communities reports that in the seven years following the 2005 BRAC round, only \1/3\ of former base property has been transferred to local authorities for redevelopment. Our legislation would address this problem by extending the period of time for which a closed base is eligible for HUBZone status from 5 years after closure to 8 years. Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Steve supports this legislation, explaining that BRAC facilities do not have adequate residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement and that businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' Heather Blease is a Mainer who has explained the need for these changes as well. Heather is an entrepreneur who opened a small business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station in 2013. She has described the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the limited number of residences on the base make it nearly impossible to meet the 35 percent residency requirement. She says that this proposed legislation ``would make all the difference in the world'' for her business, and would create needed jobs for Mainers. The Association of Defense Communities also supports our effort to tailor the HUBZone program to make it more usable by closed military bases. I ask my colleagues to support the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2015 to help communities and the people most affected get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation, closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to better tailor the HUBZone program to meet the needs of communities affected by the closure of U.S. military installations through the Base Closure and Realignment, or BRAC, process. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator King, in introducing this legislation, the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2015. This issue hits close to home for both Senator King and me. When Loring Air Force Base closed in 1994 through the BRAC process, my home of Aroostook County lost 15 percent of its population. Senator King lives in Brunswick, ME, which also experienced a considerable drop in population when it lost a major naval air station in 2011. Military bases are often the economic heart of the towns and cities in which they are located, and communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities as the redevelopment process is often lengthy and riddled with bureaucratic hurdles. In recognition of these challenges, Congress passed legislation providing HUBZone status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. This status allows small businesses located on former military bases or in ``economically distressed communities'' with high rates of poverty or unemployment to obtain certain Federal contracting preferences. According to the Small Business Administration, there are currently 107 BRAC-related HUBZones in the U.S. Unfortunately, for many of the communities surrounding closed military bases, HUBZone status has not always had the intended effect. One of the reasons is simple. The law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the closed base. When combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business live within the HUBZone, redevelopment efforts are slowed or stalled. Very few people actually live on these former bases, making it difficult, if not impossible, for businesses and job seekers alike to meet the HUBZone requirements. We have seen this very situation play out following the closure of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, which closed as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, lost more than 2,400 military and civilian personnel. These two towns have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing these jobs has taken a significant economic toll. Because so few people live within the actual boundaries of the former naval air station, its HUBZone designation does not provide the help these communities need. To address this first concern, our legislation would permit prospective employees who live just outside of the boundaries of the closed base to count toward the 35 percent requirement. Employees who live in the census tracts touching the boundaries of the closed base, and in census tracts that touch those census tracts, would be included, providing a large enough pool of potential workers for qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone. A second reason that businesses have difficulty benefiting from the HUBZone program is because closed bases are given HUBZone status for a limited time, only 5 years. Local economic development agencies working to attract new businesses to a former base cannot begin until a base is closed, and this process can take many years. Because HUBZone preferences only apply for 5 years from closure, businesses often lose years of program eligibility. In fact, the Association of Defense Communities reports that in the seven years following the 2005 BRAC round, only \1/3\ of former base property has been transferred to local authorities for redevelopment. Our legislation would address this problem by extending the period of time for which a closed base is eligible for HUBZone status from 5 years after closure to 8 years. Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Steve supports this legislation, explaining that BRAC facilities do not have adequate residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement and that businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.'' Heather Blease is a Mainer who has explained the need for these changes as well. Heather is an entrepreneur who opened a small business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station in 2013. She has described the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the limited number of residences on the base make it nearly impossible to meet the 35 percent residency requirement. She says that this proposed legislation ``would make all the difference in the world'' for her business, and would create needed jobs for Mainers. The Association of Defense Communities also supports our effort to tailor the HUBZone program to make it more usable by closed military bases. I ask my colleagues to support the HUBZone Expansion Act of 2015 to help communities and the people most affected get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation, closed through the BRAC process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2015. I am very pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I know it will come as no surprise to the Presiding Officer that small businesses are our Nation's job creators. Firms with fewer than 500 employees generate about 50 percent of our Nation's GDP, account for more than 99 percent of employers, and employ nearly half of all workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, small businesses generated 63 percent of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2013. Even the smallest firms have a notable effect on our economy. The Small Business Administration's data indicates that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18 percent of all private sector jobs in 2013. Our bill allows small businesses to plan for capital investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. It eases complex accounting rules for the smallest businesses and it reduces the tax burden on newly formed ventures. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, indicate that taxes are the No. 1 concern of small business owners and that constant change in the Tax Code is among their chief concerns, and that is certainly the case in the State of Maine. When I talk with employers across the State, they constantly tell me the uncertainty in our Tax Code and in the regulations that are coming out of Washington make it very difficult for them to plan, to hire new workers, and to know what is going to be coming their way. A key feature of our bill is that it provides the certainty that small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans that are vital to their growth. I will give an example. Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code allows small businesses to deduct the costs of acquired assets more rapidly. The amount of the maximum allowable deduction has changed three times in the past 8 years. Making matters worse, it is usually not addressed until it is part of a huge package of extenders passed at the end of the year, making this tax benefit unpredictable from year to year and, therefore, difficult for small businesses to take full advantage of in their long-range planning. They essentially have to gamble that the tax incentive is going to be extended and that it is going to be made retroactive to the 1st of the year. Just recently, I spoke with Patrick Schrader from Arundel Machine, a small business in Maine. He told me that the uncertainty surrounding section 179 has hindered his ability to make sound business decisions. The high-tech equipment that he needs requires months of lead time. For a small business like Patrick's, it is very risky to increase spending to expand and create new jobs when the deductibility of the machinery that helps to make those jobs possible remains unknown until late December. For business planning, this is information that is vital to have at the beginning of the year, not at the end of the year. This uncertainty has a direct impact on hiring decisions and the ability to take advantage of business opportunities. Our bill permanently sets the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 at $500,000, indexed for inflation, and it is also structured in such a way that it is really targeted to our smaller businesses. Our bill will also permanently extend the ability of restaurants, retailers, and certain businesses that lease their space to depreciate the costs of property improvements over 15 years rather than over 39 years. Think about that. What restaurant is going to be able to wait 39 years before doing upgrades and improvements? What we are trying to do is to better match the depreciation schedule with the need to update a restaurant or a retail space. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act also allows more companies to use the cash method of accounting by permanently doubling the threshold at which the more complex accrual method is required from $5 million in gross receipts to $10 million. This includes an expansion in the ability of small businesses to use simplified methods of accounting for inventories. Our legislation also eases the tax burden on a new startup business by permanently doubling the deduction for those initial expenses from $5,000 to $10,000, and for a very small business, that is really important. Similar to section 179, this benefit is limited to small businesses and the deduction phases out for total expenses exceeding $60,000. Our legislation extends for 1 year a provision that provides benefits to businesses of all sizes, the so-called bonus depreciation. Let me make clear that I continue to believe Congress should undertake comprehensive tax reform, with three major goals. It should result in a Tax Code that is more progrowth, that is fairer, and that is simpler. I urge the Senate to undertake such a reform, but in the meantime, the provisions of our bill would make a real difference in the ability of our Nation's small businesses to keep and create jobs. I will give another real-life example of what the small business expensing provisions can mean. I am proud to say Maine is known for its delicious craft beers. Dan Kleban founded Maine Beer Company with his brother in 2009. In 6 short years, the company has added 21 good-paying jobs with generous health and retirement benefits. They plan to hire at least three more workers shortly. Dan noted that his company's business decisions were directly affected by section 179 expensing. Here is why. This provision allowed them to expand by reinvesting their capital in new equipment to produce more beer and hire more Mainers. Those are both good outcomes. In the last 3 years, they have taken the maximum deduction allowed under section 179 to acquire the equipment they needed to expand their business. This year, they hope to use the provision to finance the cost of a solar project that will offset nearly 50 percent of their energy consumption. If their business had been forced to spread these deductions over many years, its owners would not have been able to grow the business as they have done nor create those good jobs. This economic benefit is multiplied when we consider the effect of the investment by Maine Beer Company and Maine's many other craft brewers on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul the new equipment to their breweries, the increased inventory in their breweries, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew the additional beer. So it has a ripple effect that benefits many other businesses and allows them to create more jobs as well. In February, NFIB released new research that backs up this claim with hard numbers. They found that simply extending section 179 permanently at the 2014 level could increase employment by as much as 197,000 jobs during the 10-year window following implementation. U.S. real output could also increase by as much as $18.6 billion over the same period. In light of the positive effects this bill would have on small businesses, on job creation, and on our economy, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act. I would note that the bill has been endorsed by NFIB, the leading voice for small business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement from the NFIB be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act of 2015. I am very pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I know it will come as no surprise to the Presiding Officer that small businesses are our Nation's job creators. Firms with fewer than 500 employees generate about 50 percent of our Nation's GDP, account for more than 99 percent of employers, and employ nearly half of all workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, small businesses generated 63 percent of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2013. Even the smallest firms have a notable effect on our economy. The Small Business Administration's data indicates that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18 percent of all private sector jobs in 2013. Our bill allows small businesses to plan for capital investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. It eases complex accounting rules for the smallest businesses and it reduces the tax burden on newly formed ventures. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, indicate that taxes are the No. 1 concern of small business owners and that constant change in the Tax Code is among their chief concerns, and that is certainly the case in the State of Maine. When I talk with employers across the State, they constantly tell me the uncertainty in our Tax Code and in the regulations that are coming out of Washington make it very difficult for them to plan, to hire new workers, and to know what is going to be coming their way. A key feature of our bill is that it provides the certainty that small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans that are vital to their growth. I will give an example. Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code allows small businesses to deduct the costs of acquired assets more rapidly. The amount of the maximum allowable deduction has changed three times in the past 8 years. Making matters worse, it is usually not addressed until it is part of a huge package of extenders passed at the end of the year, making this tax benefit unpredictable from year to year and, therefore, difficult for small businesses to take full advantage of in their long-range planning. They essentially have to gamble that the tax incentive is going to be extended and that it is going to be made retroactive to the 1st of the year. Just recently, I spoke with Patrick Schrader from Arundel Machine, a small business in Maine. He told me that the uncertainty surrounding section 179 has hindered his ability to make sound business decisions. The high-tech equipment that he needs requires months of lead time. For a small business like Patrick's, it is very risky to increase spending to expand and create new jobs when the deductibility of the machinery that helps to make those jobs possible remains unknown until late December. For business planning, this is information that is vital to have at the beginning of the year, not at the end of the year. This uncertainty has a direct impact on hiring decisions and the ability to take advantage of business opportunities. Our bill permanently sets the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 at $500,000, indexed for inflation, and it is also structured in such a way that it is really targeted to our smaller businesses. Our bill will also permanently extend the ability of restaurants, retailers, and certain businesses that lease their space to depreciate the costs of property improvements over 15 years rather than over 39 years. Think about that. What restaurant is going to be able to wait 39 years before doing upgrades and improvements? What we are trying to do is to better match the depreciation schedule with the need to update a restaurant or a retail space. The Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act also allows more companies to use the cash method of accounting by permanently doubling the threshold at which the more complex accrual method is required from $5 million in gross receipts to $10 million. This includes an expansion in the ability of small businesses to use simplified methods of accounting for inventories. Our legislation also eases the tax burden on a new startup business by permanently doubling the deduction for those initial expenses from $5,000 to $10,000, and for a very small business, that is really important. Similar to section 179, this benefit is limited to small businesses and the deduction phases out for total expenses exceeding $60,000. Our legislation extends for 1 year a provision that provides benefits to businesses of all sizes, the so-called bonus depreciation. Let me make clear that I continue to believe Congress should undertake comprehensive tax reform, with three major goals. It should result in a Tax Code that is more progrowth, that is fairer, and that is simpler. I urge the Senate to undertake such a reform, but in the meantime, the provisions of our bill would make a real difference in the ability of our Nation's small businesses to keep and create jobs. I will give another real-life example of what the small business expensing provisions can mean. I am proud to say Maine is known for its delicious craft beers. Dan Kleban founded Maine Beer Company with his brother in 2009. In 6 short years, the company has added 21 good-paying jobs with generous health and retirement benefits. They plan to hire at least three more workers shortly. Dan noted that his company's business decisions were directly affected by section 179 expensing. Here is why. This provision allowed them to expand by reinvesting their capital in new equipment to produce more beer and hire more Mainers. Those are both good outcomes. In the last 3 years, they have taken the maximum deduction allowed under section 179 to acquire the equipment they needed to expand their business. This year, they hope to use the provision to finance the cost of a solar project that will offset nearly 50 percent of their energy consumption. If their business had been forced to spread these deductions over many years, its owners would not have been able to grow the business as they have done nor create those good jobs. This economic benefit is multiplied when we consider the effect of the investment by Maine Beer Company and Maine's many other craft brewers on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul the new equipment to their breweries, the increased inventory in their breweries, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew the additional beer. So it has a ripple effect that benefits many other businesses and allows them to create more jobs as well. In February, NFIB released new research that backs up this claim with hard numbers. They found that simply extending section 179 permanently at the 2014 level could increase employment by as much as 197,000 jobs during the 10-year window following implementation. U.S. real output could also increase by as much as $18.6 billion over the same period. In light of the positive effects this bill would have on small businesses, on job creation, and on our economy, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act. I would note that the bill has been endorsed by NFIB, the leading voice for small business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement from the NFIB be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business in order to introduce a bill.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, how much time is left?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the question before us is very clear: If you believe runaway and homeless youth should receive services that are federally funded without regard to their sexual orientation, you should vote yes on this amendment. The Cornyn amendment does not prohibit discrimination.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the question really comes down to this: Do we want provider services to homeless and runaway youth to be able to turn away at the door a 13-year-old girl simply because of her sexual orientation? That is what this comes down to, and I think the answer is no if that provider is receiving Federal funds. It shouldn't matter, and we should be willing to stand and say that we want to help all youth stay out of the clutches of these truly evil sex traffickers. That is what this is about.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me commend Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar for the work they have done on this antitrafficking bill. This is, in fact, a horrendous crime. Just a few months ago in my home State, in Bangor, a couple was arrested for allegedly trafficking a 13-year-old girl. That is what we are talking about, and that is why this legislation is so important. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and I commend Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar and others for working so hard on it. The antitrafficking bill deals with the law enforcement piece of this horrendous problem. But we also need to pay attention to prevention programs. That is why this afternoon we will vote on a proposal that Senator Leahy and I, along with Senators Heitkamp, Ayotte, Murkowski, and Baldwin, have put forth to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs, which already have expired. They expired in 2013. These are absolutely critical programs for preventing homeless youth and runaway youth from ending up in the hands of sex traffickers. The runaway and homeless youth programs are comprised of three programs: the Street Outreach Program, the Basic Center Program, and the Transitional Living Program. They have helped thousands of our homeless youth meet their immediate needs and provided long-term residential services for those who, sadly, cannot be reunited with their families. The amendment that we are offering complements the underlying bill by addressing prevention, intervention, and recovery service for trafficking victims, particularly among the most vulnerable population--our homeless youth. According to a 2013 report by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, homelessness is one of the most common risk factors for sex trafficking. Without access to food, shelter, and social supports, homeless young people often turn to what is termed ``survival sex;'' that is, a way to trade sex for a place to sleep, for food, and for other basic necessities. Another recent report found that one in four homeless youth are victims of sex trafficking or engage in survival sex. Our amendment strengthens the existing programs by ensuring that service providers know how to identify trafficking victims and give these youth the support they need. In many cases these services can prevent these homeless and runaway youth from becoming victims in the first place. In Maine, our homeless shelters are critical partners in the fight to end human trafficking. In Portland, for example, the Preble Street Resource Center has used Runaway and Homeless Youth Act resources to connect youth who need food, shelter, health services, and educational support. The Preble Street Anti-trafficking Coalition is currently helping approximately 50 trafficking victims whose ages range from 14 to 42. They enable them to start new lives. New Beginnings, a great program in Lewiston, ME, and the Shaw House in Bangor, ME, are other organizations that have successfully leveraged Federal grants from the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program to provide shelter and services to homeless youth in my State. With this kind of support, young people can make their way off the street and away from criminals who will exploit them at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. There are more than 1.6 million homeless teens in our country--a truly astonishing number. A growing number of these homeless youth identify themselves as LGBT. It is estimated that up to 40 percent of runaway or homeless youth are LGBT. Some of them have been kicked out of their own homes. Others have felt that there has been no place for them in their community. Our amendment would help ensure that those seeking services through the federally funded programs are not denied assistance based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. All homeless young people need access to safe beds at night and services during the day so that they never have to choose between selling their bodies and a safe place to sleep. I would like to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Heitkamp for being so passionate about this issue. They have worked with me to incorporate important feedback into our amendment, particularly from faith-based organizations. In fact, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, a letter be printed that I have from numerous faith-based organizations endorsing our amendment. These organizations represent millions of people in all 50 States. They urge us to pass our legislation with that nondiscrimination clause intact. They include, for example: Covenant House International, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Interfaith Alliance, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Metropolitan Community Churches, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, and many others that are backing our amendment. We have clarified that providers can still provide and offer sex- specific shelters and programming. By that, I mean all-girl shelters or all-boy shelters. The nondiscrimination clause is modeled--it is virtually identical to a provision enacted into law during the last Congress through the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act. Nothing, nothing in our amendment alters the ability of faith-based providers to give preference in hiring to people of their same faith. The stand-alone bill on which our amendment is based was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 15 to 3. It has the support of nearly 270 organizations including, as I mentioned, many faith-based providers that serve homeless youth, other service providers, and antitrafficking groups. They all strongly support the reauthorization of these prevention, intervention, and treatment programs. Our health care workers in Maine are also tremendous partners in helping to address trafficking crimes and their victims. Saint Joseph Hospital in Bangor has educated its clinicians to identify the signs of human trafficking among their patients. Congress must do more both to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to pursue sex trafficking, but we cannot forget those prevention and intervention programs that are provided by the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. By giving homeless youth the support and the services they need, we can help prevent them from becoming trafficked in the first place. These programs have provided lifesaving services and housing for America's homeless and runaway youth for 40 years. They are vital in addressing this serious problem. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that Senator Leahy and I, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Ayotte, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Baldwin are offering today. It is so important. Again, I want to especially thank Senator Heitkamp for all of her advocacy. She has done tremendous work. I am very happy to yield the floor for her.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am joined by my colleague Senator Ron Wyden in introducing the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, Enhancement Act of 2015. This legislation would reauthorize trade adjustment assistance programs to help American workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign competition. These programs are an investment in the American worker and are essential to helping those who are negatively affected by international trade to get the skills and training to prepare for jobs in other industries. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Enhancement Act of 2015 would cover affected workers in the manufacturing, service, and agricultural sectors. In addition to covering workers whose jobs shift to countries with which the United States has a Free Trade Agreement, the bill would also extend to job losses from non-FTA countries, such as China or India. It would make eligible for assistance those who have been laid off due to unfair foreign subsidies or dumping practices, as long as the layoff occurs within 1 year of an affirmative injury determination by the International Trade Commission. Our bill would also authorize an investment of up to $575 million per year to train workers in new, in-demand skills, thereby providing them with the opportunity to find lasting employment that will ensure greater economic stability in years to come. It would also provide extended unemployment insurance for those enrolled in an approved training program. For older workers seeking quick reemployment, our bill would provide wage insurance to cover up to 50 percent of the wage differential between the old job and the new job. It would also provide assistance to those who must commute a greater distance or relocate altogether to find new employment. Under our bill, farmers, fishermen, and aquaculture producers would also be eligible for targeted training and assistance programs designed to help increase their competitiveness. The bill would further clarify that fishermen and aquaculture producers may receive TAA benefits whether they are competing against farmed or wild-caught fish or seafood imports. Small, rural communities in my home State of Maine have been hit hard by closures or partial shutdowns of mills, manufacturing plants, or other businesses that, in many cases, represent a large portion of jobs in the surrounding communities. In the past year, the communities of Lincoln, Millinocket, and Bucksport have experienced such devastating job losses. Moreover, the second and third-order economic effects on other businesses is significant. When these jobs are abruptly lost on such a massive scale, entire communities and the surrounding area are devastated. In times of such great upheaval, the laid off employees, who lost their good jobs through no fault of their own, need the time, support, and resources to learn new skills and seek viable employment opportunities. TAA programs have made a tremendous difference in the lives of those working in trade-affected industries in Maine, such as the pulp and paper manufacturing, lobster, and blueberry industries. In fiscal year 2013, more than 700 Mainers benefitted from these programs, which led to an employment retention rate of more than 90 percent. In the last year alone, the Department of Labor approved TAA benefits for the hundreds of workers who lost their jobs with the closures of the Verso Paper mill in Bucksport, the Lincoln Paper and Tissue mill in Lincoln, the Great Northern Paper mill in East Millinocket, and the UTC Fire and Security plant in Pittsfield. Previously, TAA benefited former employees of the Great Northern Paper mill in Millinocket when it closed, in addition to lobstermen and wild blueberry producers who needed help increasing the competitiveness of their unique commodities. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Eastern Maine Community College and tour its Fine Woodworking and Cabinet Making Shop. I met with a group of students formerly employed at the Bucksport Verso Paper mill, who now have the opportunity to learn a new skill because of the funds available through TAA. TAA has been vitally important in helping Maine workers, and those across the Nation, who have been harmed by trade get the skills and training they need to prepare for jobs in other industries. Reauthorization of trade adjustment assistance programs must be a part of the national trade policy debate, and I am pleased that the Senate recognized the importance of TAA by approving the bipartisan amendment that I authored to the Budget Resolution related to reauthorizing TAA. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Trade Adjustment Assistance Enhancement Act of 2015 to continue crucial investments in the American worker and protect them from unfair trade practices and increased imports.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator King in recognizing the Job Corps program on its 50th anniversary. Job Corps helps at-risk young people ages 16 through 24 improve the quality of their lives through vocational and academic training. On August 30, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed legislation creating Job Corps. Today, one-half century later, generations of graduates in Maine and across America demonstrate why Job Corps has been one of our Nation's best investments. Since its founding, more than 2.7 million young people have entered the Job Corps program with the determination to succeed and have graduated with the confidence and the skills to do so. The success rate is extraordinary. Nearly 86 percent of Job Corps graduates find employment in their fields, go on to higher education or serve our country in uniform. Job Corps students do not just learn a trade--they cultivate high aspirations and a commitment to service. As I travel throughout Maine, I have extensive conversations with small business owners and workers about the challenges they face. While there is no doubt that our Nation's unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, I have met with employers in Maine who have jobs available but who cannot find qualified and trained workers to fill these vacant positions. With two centers in Maine, Job Corps not only helps young people in our State gain the skills that lead to rewarding careers, but it also improves their lives, assists employers, and strengthens communities. The Penobscot Job Corps Academy in Bangor, ME, and the Loring Job Corps Center in Limestone, ME, have the capability to serve nearly 800 at- risk youth on a daily basis. Over the past several decades, these two centers have compiled an impressive record of success in preparing disadvantaged youth for the workplace or higher education. The combination of skills, self-confidence, and determination Job Corps offers can help young people overcome the setbacks, obstacles, and failures that often are part of life. The focus on community service at both centers helps to create the involved citizens that are so important to Maine's future. These centers put these young men and women on a path to being successful and vital contributing members of our country. Job Corps was founded on the noble idea that, if given the opportunity, the support, and the training, America's young people could overcome any obstacles and achieve. For 50 years, Job Corps graduates have turned that idea into reality. I congratulate Job Corps again on this accomplishment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Maine.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would prohibit the IRS from the targeting any U.S. citizens for exercising their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The history of the IRS offers abundant examples of the Agency trampling on these rights. In the most recent controversy, which came to light in 2013, the IRS applied a heightened scrutiny to applications from conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status. Delaying these groups' applications suggests an attempt to chill the constitutional right of speech and association by groups that hold conservative views. No matter what your political views, the details that have emerged are truly alarming. The IRS admitted that it deliberately targeted conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status for extra review if they included such words as ``tea party,'' ``patriots,'' or ``9/11'' in their names. It also acknowledged targeting applications from groups that criticized how this country is being run or whose purpose was to address government spending, government debt, taxes, or simply to make America a better place. These inappropriate criteria stayed in place for more than 18 months and resulted in substantial delays in processing the applications of many different groups. In some cases, the applications remained outstanding for more than 2 years. The IRS also sought to compel some of the targeted groups to divulge their membership lists. IRS officials have subsequently admitted there was absolutely no reason for Agency personnel to have sought that kind of information. Such behavior, unfortunately, is not a one-time aberration, and the targets have been on both sides of the aisle. A May 2013 Time magazine article noted that the IRS has been involved in scandals going back at least as far as the Kennedy administration, which used the service to investigate so-called rightwing groups. President Nixon employed a secret IRS operation to investigate and audit political opponents. During the Johnson administration, the IRS targeted some antiwar activists. In the decades since, a number of political activists from both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum, as well as whistleblowers, have been subjected to intimidating and discriminatory scrutiny by the IRS. The IRS's history of abuses demonstrates that Congress must be ever- vigilant in protecting taxpayers. The Agency's power allows it to pervade the most sensitive aspects of Americans' private lives. Irrespective of whether those singled out are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, Independent or Green Party members, regardless of their personal views, the targeting of private citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights is out of bounds and cannot be tolerated. Seventeen years ago, when the IRS was accused of using abusive tactics towards taxpayers, Congress responded by passing the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That act created the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, strengthened taxpayer protections against unauthorized collection activities, and established an oversight board to ensure that taxpayers are properly treated by the IRS. The bill I am introducing today builds on the 1998 act, as well as an amendment I authored in 2013, which became law, that prohibited the IRS from using funds provided through the fiscal year 2014 IRS funding bill to target American citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. That prohibition on the use of funds was continued in the fiscal year 2015 funding bill, and the legislation I am offering today would make that prohibition permanent. The First Amendment is one of our most cherished and sacred freedoms, and its free exercise must be vigorously protected. It has been said the power to tax is the power to destroy. The American people cannot and will not tolerate any abuse of that power. It is imperative that Congress act to make sure the power of the IRS is never again used to harass or abuse Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights. The bill I have introduced is tailored to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Apprenticeship and Jobs Training Act, which I have introduced with my colleague Senator Cantwell. Few issues are as important to the American people as the availability of good jobs in our communities. Unemployment in Maine and across the country remains unacceptably high. It is crucial that we continue to improve job training initiatives to help people find jobs in fields with open positions. Many business owners in Maine have told me that they have jobs available, but they cannot find qualified and trained workers to fill these vacant positions. One way for employees to acquire the skills needed to succeed in these in-demand fields is through apprenticeship programs. Apprentices gain hands-on experience that is invaluable to employers and can help workers secure a well-paying job. According to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, more than 44,000 participants graduated from the apprenticeship system in fiscal year 2014. In Maine, there were almost 700 registered apprentices. That number, however, is likely insufficient to meet tomorrow's needs. One manufacturer in Maine estimates that nearly 2.7 million manufacturing employees are expected to retire in the next decade. We must do all we can to ensure that an adequate pool of skilled workers is available to fill these well-paying jobs. Our bill helps achieve this goal by giving tax credits to businesses that hire apprentices. To ensure that workers are given adequate time to prove their value, the apprentice must be employed for seven months in order for a business to claim the credit. Our bill also provides incentives for experienced workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time passing their hard-earned knowledge on to the next generation. These workers would be allowed to receive some retirement income early, without facing tax penalties. Finally, our bill ensures that the brave men and women who defend our country are given credit for the skills they learn while serving. Training received while serving in the Armed Forces would count toward an apprentice's training requirement. This bill would help better align the needs of our Nation's employers with potential employees to promote hiring and the creation of new jobs. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill, and I am pleased to join Senator Cantwell in introducing it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Apprenticeship and Jobs Training Act, which I have introduced with my colleague Senator Cantwell. Few issues are as important to the American people as the availability of good jobs in our communities. Unemployment in Maine and across the country remains unacceptably high. It is crucial that we continue to improve job training initiatives to help people find jobs in fields with open positions. Many business owners in Maine have told me that they have jobs available, but they cannot find qualified and trained workers to fill these vacant positions. One way for employees to acquire the skills needed to succeed in these in-demand fields is through apprenticeship programs. Apprentices gain hands-on experience that is invaluable to employers and can help workers secure a well-paying job. According to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, more than 44,000 participants graduated from the apprenticeship system in fiscal year 2014. In Maine, there were almost 700 registered apprentices. That number, however, is likely insufficient to meet tomorrow's needs. One manufacturer in Maine estimates that nearly 2.7 million manufacturing employees are expected to retire in the next decade. We must do all we can to ensure that an adequate pool of skilled workers is available to fill these well-paying jobs. Our bill helps achieve this goal by giving tax credits to businesses that hire apprentices. To ensure that workers are given adequate time to prove their value, the apprentice must be employed for seven months in order for a business to claim the credit. Our bill also provides incentives for experienced workers who spend at least 20 percent of their time passing their hard-earned knowledge on to the next generation. These workers would be allowed to receive some retirement income early, without facing tax penalties. Finally, our bill ensures that the brave men and women who defend our country are given credit for the skills they learn while serving. Training received while serving in the Armed Forces would count toward an apprentice's training requirement. This bill would help better align the needs of our Nation's employers with potential employees to promote hiring and the creation of new jobs. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill, and I am pleased to join Senator Cantwell in introducing it.