Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague and friend from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing us to pose a question through the Chair. I hope our colleagues have heard this exchange, this colloquy, which clarifies what appears to be a rather widespread misunderstanding about the reach of this bill. As I said, the 30-day issue is a different issue, a legitimate dispute as to whether that is too aggressive. We have some colleagues who think it should be a 10-day reporting period and an amendment has been filed to implement that. I personally prefer the 90 days in the original bill. I think that is more realistic. But the fact is there is a lot of misinformation and questions regarding what is reported. I appreciate the clarification from the Senator, the chairman of the committee. At this point I yield to Senator Coburn for the next amendment.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Oklahoma offers his amendment--and I will not take a great deal of time in my comments--I want to respond to some questions that many of our colleagues have raised about the reporting requirements in this bill. One of my colleagues, for example, has asked if a change in a Member's or staff's allocation in the Thrift Savings Program would be required to be reported under this bill. It would not. It is not required to be reported under the annual financial disclosure and it is not required under this bill. A second of our colleagues has brought up a question of how would mutual funds be treated. Again, I would say that the treatment is not changed by this bill, other than the time period. Under this bill, as under the annual financial disclosure forms, qualified investment funds--those are the widely available mutual funds that are exempt from trades being disclosed--would be exempt under this bill as well. As with our annual financial disclosures, you still list the fund and the amount of assets in categories for those funds, but you indicate that they are a qualified exempt fund and there is no requirement for trying to figure out what the trades are within that fund. I mention these two examples because I fear there is some misinformation about the bill that is circulating. There is a legitimate dispute over whether 30 days is too short a time, whether the 90-day period in the original bill is better, which is my own preference. But the fact is that the information that is being reported is not being changed. The issue is how often it is reported. The inquiries from my colleagues about the implications for the Thrift Savings Plan allocations and for qualified exempt investment funds, widely held mutual funds, remain the same. They are reported, the category of the investment, the amount is reported, but the individual trades within the fund are not reported. I apologize for surprising the Senator from Connecticut with this inquiry, and hope he will forgive me for that, but I would, through the Chair, pose a question to the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee, as to whether his understanding is the same as mine with regard to the Thrift Savings Plan and qualified mutual funds?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier we agreed to alternate side to side for the offering of amendments. However, I would say to the Democratic floor manager that there do not appear to be any Democrats right now who are seeking recognition. Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be permitted to proceed at this time, given the absence of a Democrat on the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thought we had a tentative, informal agreement that we were going to go back and forth, alternating to make amendments pending, and that we would do one from the Democratic side, then one from the Republican side, and go back and forth.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I, then, ask unanimous consent that we proceed with amendments so that we do alternate from side to side, since there are a number of amendments that have been filed, and I think that would be the fairest way to proceed to make them pending.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I want to join in saluting Alan for his many years of work. He is someone all of us know to be an honest broker, who calls them as he sees them, who withstands at times tremendous pressures, and who has extraordinary knowledge that all of us have come to rely upon. On behalf of the Republican side of the aisle, I am sure I am speaking for our Members as well in saluting Alan and wishing him well, and thanking him for his many years of dedicated public service. We wish you well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the health of American travelers is not placed at possible risk as our airport security technology evolves. I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, and Levin, who are cosponsoring this bill. Our bill has two major components. First, it would require the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, in consultation with the National Science Foundation, to commission an independent study on the possible health effects of the x-ray radiation emitted by some of the scanning machines we see and pass through in our airports. Second, it would give airline passengers, especially those passengers in sensitive groups such as pregnant women, clear notice of their ability to choose another screening option in lieu of exposure to ionizing radiation. Some advanced-imaging technology--or AIT--machines rely on x-ray backscatter technology. Time and time again, I have expressed my concern over their use, particularly since there is an alternative screening technology available. While the TSA has repeatedly told the public that the amount of radiation emitted from these machines is extremely small, passengers and some scientific experts have raised legitimate questions about the impact of repeated exposure to this radiation. Last November, during a hearing on aviation security before our Homeland Security Committee, the TSA Administrator, John Pistole, agreed to my call for an independent study to address the lingering health concerns and questions about this additional and repeated exposure to radiation. Shortly thereafter, however, he appeared to back away from this commitment, suggesting that a forthcoming report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general might be a sufficient substitute for a new, completely independent, thorough study. Chairman Joe Lieberman and I wrote to the Administrator to press for more details about TSA's plans for an independent study. Two weeks later, having received no reply, I sent another letter to Administrator Pistole asking why he believed the IG report on TSA's use of backscatter machines was a sufficient substitute for an independent study of the health impacts. TSA's response lacked any detail as to why the agency no longer believes an independent study on the health effects of x-ray backscatter machines is warranted, nor did it explain how the IG's review would be a sufficient substitute for an independent study. That is why I have introduced this bill today. Late last year, the European Commission announced that ``in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety,'' it would only authorize the use of passenger scanners in the European Union that do not use x-ray technology. This prohibition gives even more need and justification for an independent study of the safety of the AIT machines. Some respected experts have warned Congress and the administration of the potential negative public health risks posed by the x-ray backscatter machines. They note that while the risk that someone might develop cancer because of his or her exposure to radiation during one screening by such an AIT machine is very small, we simply do not truly know the risk of this radiation exposure over multiple screenings for frequent flyers, those in vulnerable groups, or TSA employees themselves who are operating these machines. When a person is scanned by these machines, they receive a dose of radiation--what experts in the field call a direct dose. During the scan, some of the radiation is not absorbed but is scattered in random directions from the person being scanned. Experts call this the scatter dose. Some experts point to anomalies between the scatter dose reportedly associated with these scanners and the scatter dose associated with comparable medical technology. Specifically, the scatter doses for these AIT machines are higher in relative terms than scatter doses for comparable medical devices. What is troubling is that the experts are not sure why the AIT scatter doses are higher. They point to possible deficiencies with the testing equipment or the poor placement of the testing equipment as possible explanations. Overall, they say this anomaly could point to higher direct dose rates and should be yet another impetus for an independent study. Additionally, some experts note that the safety mechanisms in these machines that would prevent them from malfunctioning have never been independently tested. This means that if a machine malfunctions and the safety features designed to shut the machine down in such an instance do not work, a traveler could receive a higher dose of radiation. Pregnant women, children, the elderly, and as much as 5 percent of the adult population are more sensitive to radiation exposure. At a minimum, this suggests the need for further independent study. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a tragic episode involving the daughter of two of my constituents. She underwent screening at the airport with a backscatter x-ray AIT. She was pregnant and directed by TSA to a line for a backscatter x-ray AIT machine. She was completely unaware that she was entering into an x-ray emitting machine before she stepped into it. She thought it was the more traditional magnetometer. Afterward, she was distressed to know she had exposed her unborn child to x-ray radiation. Had she realized ahead of time, she clearly would have opted for the alternative screening methods. Only 2 weeks later, she suffered a miscarriage which she attributes to the radiation she received from this scan. We will never know for certain the cause of this family's loss, but they believe in their hearts that the backscatter radiation is to blame. Clearly, at a minimum, this young woman should have been informed by a prominent sign that an alternative means of screening was available. That is why my bill also requires TSA to have larger, understandable signs at the beginning of the screening process, not later when it is only noticed, if at all, after a lengthy wait in line. Signs should alert passengers that pregnant women, children, and the elderly can be more sensitive to radiation exposure. These signs should also make clear that passengers can opt out of this type of scanning. I have urged TSA to move forward using only radiation screening technology, but in the meantime, an independent study is needed to protect the public and to determine which technology is worthy of taxpayer dollars. Surely passengers should be well informed of their screening options. We Americans have demonstrated our willingness to endure enhanced security measures at our airports if those measures appear to be reasonable and related to real risks. But travelers become frustrated when security measures inconvenience them without cause, cause privacy or health concerns, or when they appear to be focused on those who pose little or no threat. On this particular issue, Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, Levin, and I agree that we are past the time when an independent review of the scanning technology that emits radiation must be undertaken. I urge my colleagues to join us in quickly passing this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today the chairman of our committee, Senator Lieberman, and the sponsor of this bill, Senator Scott Brown, in urging our colleagues to begin consideration of what is known as the STOCK Act. This legislation is based on a bill that was first introduced in the Senate by Senator Scott Brown and a similar one introduced by Senator Gillibrand. Put simply, the STOCK Act is intended to ensure that Members of Congress do not profit from trading on insider information. As a cosponsor of Senator Brown's bill, I wish to commend him for his leadership in this area. I also wish to recognize Chairman Lieberman for moving this important bill forward in such an expeditious manner. Press reports on ``60 Minutes'' and elsewhere have raised questions about whether lawmakers have been exempt, either legally or practically, from the reach of our laws prohibiting insider trading. At a time when polls show record low public confidence in Congress, there is a strong desire on our part to address the concerns that underpin the public's skepticism and assure the American people that we are putting their interests ahead of our own. The STOCK Act is intended to affirm that Members of Congress are not exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. While several of the witnesses who appeared before our committee's hearing on this bill testified that there is no legal exemption for Members of Congress, confusion and uncertainty nevertheless persists. For example, on the eve of our markup, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a Yale law professor who wrote that ``the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that insider trading laws do not apply to Members of Congress or their staff.'' This, however, is directly contradicted by the statement for the record submitted to the committee by the SEC's Enforcement Director who said: ``There is no reason why trading by Members of Congress or their staff members should be considered exempt from the Federal securities laws, including trading prohibitions.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the SEC statement at the conclusion of my comments.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to me, this illustrates the confusion over this issue. So I am pleased the committee not only reported Senator Brown's bill but unanimously adopted an amendment I offered with Chairman Lieberman that states clearly that Members and their staff are not exempt from insider trading laws. The need for this unambiguous statement can likely be traced back to the nature of the insider trading laws. As our committee has learned, our Nation's insider trading laws are not, generally speaking, based on statutes passed by Congress but rather on court precedents. As one of our witnesses, law professor Donna Nagy from Indiana University, pointed out during our hearing: Congress has never enacted a Federal securities statute that explicitly prohibits anyone from insider trading. . . . The explicit statutory ban on insider trading . . . is entirely absent in U.S. securities law. Rather, the SEC pursues insider trading cases under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly section 10B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b5, a broad antifraud rule promulgated by the Commission. Therefore, what constitutes insider trading has largely been determined by the courts, including the Supreme Court, on a case-by-case basis. Under the case law, two different types or theories of insider trading violations have developed; one where the defendant is a classic corporate insider using nonpublic information to trade on the company's stock and a second where the defendant has misappropriated inside information in violation of a duty owed to the source of the information, such as a lawyer who trades on advanced notice of a business transaction. Both types of cases, however, share common elements: There must be a breach of a duty, such as a traditional fiduciary duty or a duty of trust and confidence; the breach must involve material information, which is the type of information a reasonable investor would consider important in making a decision to buy or sell stock; the information must be nonpublic; and the defendant must receive a personal benefit, which the Supreme Court has said may include not only financial gain but also reputational benefits. As the Supreme Court has held, under section 10B, the chargeable conduct must involve a deceptive device or contrivance used in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. In criminal prosecutions for insider trading, under rule 10b5, the government must prove that a person willfully violated the provision with culpable intent. Although the witnesses who came before the committee generally agreed that Congress enjoys no exemption from insider trading laws, they also stressed the need to clarify the relevant duty that applies to Members. The bill reported by the committee, in language refined by Senator Levin, addressed this issue by affirming a duty arising from the relationship of trust and confidence already owed by Members and their staff to the Congress, the U.S. Government, and the citizens we serve. At our markup, we clarified that this does not create a new fiduciary duty, in the traditional sense, but rather recognizes or affirms our existing duty. As reported, the bill would also have amended the Congressional Accountability Act to prohibit Members and staff from using nonpublic information gained through the performance of their official duties for personal benefit. This proposed prohibition, however, was not limited to the trading context or otherwise tethered to financial transactions. Because it was not anchored in financial transactions, I expressed some concerns about the potential breadth of this term and the potential for unintended consequences. These concerns were echoed by several members of the committee during our consideration of the bill. Therefore, following the markup, we continued to refine the bill while adhering to the fundamental principle that Members of Congress should be subject to the same insider trading laws as other Americans. I believe we have come up with a solution that addresses the potential problem that troubles all of us; that is, public officials using public office for private gain. We need, however, to make sure that in doing so, we do not inhibit our ability to gather information so we can serve our constituents to the best of our ability. The proposed substitute offered by Senator Reid, Senator Brown, and Senator Lieberman reflects the work of our committee members as well as other bill sponsors. It would require the Senate Ethics Committee and the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to issue guidance on the relevant rules of each Chamber, clarifying that Members and staff may not use nonpublic information derived from their positions in Congress to make a personal profit. This would cover insider trading matters, as well as land deals and other financial transactions where nonpublic information could be wrongly converted into a private gain. Similar to the reported bill, the substitute includes a straightforward statement making clear that Members and their staff are not exempt from insider trading prohibitions arising from the securities laws. In keeping with an amendment that Senator Paul successfully offered at our markup, the substitute applies the same framework--clarification of the prohibition against using nonpublic information for private profit and the affirmation of existing duty that we have--to the employees of the executive and judicial branches, as well as the legislative branch. Similar to the reported bill, the substitute includes earlier deadlines for financial reporting requirements and greater transparency for financial disclosure statements, as the chairman mentioned, by requiring that they be available online and in a searchable format. I believe we need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand that elective office is a place for public service, not private gain; that it is an honor and a trust we have been given by the people we represent. Underscoring that important message is clearly the intent of this bill, and that is why I support it. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. Exhibit 1 [From U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Dec. 1, 2011] Statement on the Application of Insider Trading Law to Trading by Members of Congress and Their Staffs, Before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (By Robert Khuzami) Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the record on behalf of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the subject of insider trading. Insider trading threatens the integrity of our markets, depriving investors of the fundamental fairness of a level playing field. To deter this conduct and to hold accountable those who fail to play by the rules, the detection and prosecution of those who engage in insider trading remains one of the Division of Enforcement's highest priorities. My statement provides a summary of the Division of Enforcement's recent work in the area of insider trading, an overview of the law of insider trading as developed through our enforcement program and judicial precedent, and a description of how the current law of insider trading applies to securities trading by Members of Congress and their staffs. Enforcement's Insider Trading Program Insider trading has long been a high priority for the Commission. Approximately eight percent of the 650 average annual number of enforcement cases filed by the Commission in the past decade have been for insider trading violations. In the past two years, the Commission has been particularly active in this area. In fiscal year 2010, the SEC brought 53 insider trading cases against 138 individuals and entities, a 43 percent increase in the number of filed cases from the prior fiscal year. This past fiscal year, the Commission filed 57 actions against 124 individuals and entities, a nearly 8 percent increase over the number of filed cases in fiscal year 2010. The increased number of insider trading cases has been matched by an increase in the quality and significance of our recent cases. In fiscal year 2011 and the early part of fiscal year 2012, the SEC obtained judgments in 18 actions arising out of its investigation of Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, including a record $92.8 million civil penalty against Rajaratnam personally. The SEC also discovered and developed information that ultimately led to criminal convictions of Rajaratnam and others, including corporate executives and hedge fund managers, for rampant insider trading. In addition, we recently filed an insider trading action against Rajat Gupta, a former director of both Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble, whom we allege provided confidential Board information about both companies' quarterly earnings and about an impending $5 billion Berkshire Hathaway investment in Goldman Sachs to Rajaratnam, who traded on that information. Among others charged in SEC insider trading cases in the past fiscal year were various hedge fund managers and traders involved in a $30 million expert networking trading scheme, a former Nasdaq Managing Director, a former Major League Baseball player, a Food and Drug Administration chemist, and a former corporate attorney and a Wall Street trader who traded in advance of mergers involving clients of the attorney's law firm. The SEC also brought insider trading cases charging a Goldman Sachs employee and his father with trading on confidential information learned by the employee on the firm's ETF desk, and charging a corporate board member of a major energy company and his son for trading on confidential information about the impending takeover of the company. The Division also has targeted non-traditional cases involving the misuse or mishandling of material, non-public information. This past fiscal year, the Commission charged Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith with fraud for improperly accessing and misusing customer order information for the firm's own benefit. The Commission also censured broker-dealer Janney Montgomery Scott LLC for failing to enforce its own policies and procedures designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information. Charles Schwab Investment Management was charged for failing to have appropriate information barriers for nonpublic and potentially material information concerning an ultra-short bond fund that suffered significant declines during the financial crises. This deficiency gave other Schwab-related funds an unfair advantage over other investors by allowing the funds to redeem their own investments in the ultra short- bond fund during its decline. The Commission also charged Office Depot, Inc. and two of its executives for violating Regulation FD by selectively disclosing to certain analysts and institutional investors that the company would not meet its earnings. To respond to emerging risks, the Enforcement Division has developed several new initiatives targeted at ferreting out insider trading, which have enhanced our effectiveness in this area. During our recent reorganization, the Division established a Market Abuse Unit, with an emphasis on various abusive market strategies and practices, including complex insider trading schemes. The Market Abuse Unit has spearheaded the Division's Automated Bluesheet Analysis Project, an innovative investigative tool that utilizes the ``bluesheet'' database of more than one billion electronic equities and options trading records obtained by the Commission in the course of insider trading investigations over the past 20 years. Using newly developed templates, Enforcement staff are able to search across this database to recognize suspicious trading patterns and identify relationships and connections among multiple traders and across multiple securities, generating significant enforcement leads and investigative entry points. While still in its early stages of development, this new data analytic approach already has led to significant insider trading enforcement actions that were not the subject of an SRO referral, informant tip, investor complaint, media report, or other external source. As part of the reorganization, the Division also established a cooperation program to encourage key fact witnesses to provide valuable information. Insider trading investigations are extremely fact-intensive. Enforcement staff undertake the often painstaking work of collecting and analyzing trading data across equity and options markets, analyzing communications (email, telephone calls and instant messages, among others) and analyzing market-moving events (e.g., announcements of corporate earnings, product development, and acquisitions and mergers) to identify persons who may have engaged in insider trading or who may have information about such activity. Our new cooperation program is a valuable tool that can help us break open an insider trading investigation earlier in the process, thereby preserving resources. We are already seeing the effectiveness of the cooperation program in our insider trading cases and expect this trend to continue as more cooperators come forward in our investigations. With an aggressive investigative approach that includes early coordination with the FBI, Department of Justice, and other law enforcement agencies, we have been able to identify potential cooperators who may assist criminal authorities with their covert investigative techniques, helping amass critical evidence in numerous insider trading investigations. Our work with certain SROs has provided valuable early tips, helping us mitigate the harm from insider trading schemes by freezing the illicit proceeds before funds are moved to offshore jurisdictions. Law of Insider Trading There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities. The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful ``[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.'' Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,'' because ``[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.'' There are two principal theories under which the SEC prosecutes insider trading cases under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The ``classical theory'' applies to corporate insiders--officers, directors, and employees of a corporation, as well as ``temporary'' insiders, such as attorneys, accountants, and consultants to the corporation. Under the ``classical theory'' of insider trading liability, a corporate insider violates Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 when he or she trades in the securities of the corporation on the basis of material, nonpublic information. Trading on such information qualifies as a ``deceptive device'' under Section 10(b), because ``a relationship of trust and confidence [exists] between the shareholders of a corporation and those insiders who have obtained confidential information by reason of their position with that corporation.'' That relationship ``gives rise to a duty to disclose [or to abstain from trading] because of the `necessity of preventing a corporate insider from . . . tak[ing] unfair advantage of . . . uninformed . . . stockholders.' '' The Supreme Court has recognized that corporate ``outsiders'' can also be liable for insider trading under the ``misappropriation theory.'' Under this theory, a person commits fraud ``in connection with'' a securities transaction, and thereby violates Section 10(b) and Rule 10b- 5, when he or she misappropriates confidential and material information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information. This is because ``a fiduciary's undisclosed, self-serving use of a principal's information to purchase or sell securities, in breach of a duty of loyalty and confidentiality, defrauds the principal of the exclusive use of that information.'' The misappropriation theory thus ``premises liability on a fiduciary-turned-trader's deception of those who entrusted him with access to confidential information.'' Under either the classical or misappropriation theory, a person can also be held liable for ``tipping'' material, nonpublic information to others who trade, and a ``tippee'' can be held liable for trading on such information. A common law principle is that employees owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence to their employers. In addition, employees often take on contractual duties of trust or confidence as a condition of their employment or by agreeing to comply with a corporate policy. Accordingly, employees have frequently been held liable under the misappropriation theory for trading or tipping on the basis of material non-public information obtained during the course of their employment. This includes prosecution of federal employees who, in breach of a duty to their employer, the federal government, trade or tip on the basis of information they obtained in the course of their employment. For example, the SEC recently brought insider trading charges against a Food and Drug Administration employee alleging that he violated a duty of trust and confidence owed to the federal government under certain governmental rules of conduct when he traded in advance of confidential FDA drug approval announcements. In light of existing precedent regarding the liability of employees--including federal employees--for insider trading, any statutory changes in this area should be carefully calibrated to ensure that they do not narrow current law and thereby make it more difficult to bring future insider trading actions against any such persons. Application of Insider Trading Law to Trading by Members of Congress and Their Staff The general legal principles described above apply to all trading within the scope of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. There is no reason why trading by Members of Congress or their staff members would be considered ``exempt'' from the federal securities laws, including the insider trading prohibitions, though the application of these principles to such trading, particularly in the case of Members of Congress, is without direct precedent and may present some unique issues. Just as in any other insider trading inquiry, there are several fact-intensive questions--including the existence and nature of the duty being breached and both the materiality and nonpublic nature of the information--that would drive the analysis of whether securities trading (or tipping) by a Member of Congress or staff member based on information learned in an official capacity violates Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The first question is whether the trading, or communicating the information to someone else, breached a duty owed by the Member or staff. Although there is no direct precedent for Congressional staff, there is case law from other employment contexts regarding misappropriation of information gained through an employment relationship. This precedent is consistent with a claim that Congressional staff, as employees, owe a duty of trust and confidence to their employer and that a Congressional staff member who trades on the basis of material non-public information obtained through his or her employment is potentially liable for insider trading under the misappropriation theory, like any other non-governmental employee. The question of duty is more novel for Members of Congress. There does not appear to be any case law that addresses the duty of a Member with respect to trading on the basis of information the Member learns in an official capacity. However, in a variety of other contexts, courts have held that ``[a] public official stands in a fiduciary relationship with the United States, through those by whom he is appointed or elected.'' Commenters have differed on whether securities trading by a Member based on information learned in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress violates the fiduciary duty he or she owes to the United States and its citizens, or to the Federal Government as his or her employer. Existing Congressional ethics rules also may be relevant to the analysis of duty for both Members and their staff. For example, Paragraph 8 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that ``Any person in Government service should . . . [n]ever use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.'' The second question is whether the information on which the Member or staff trades (or tips) is ``material''--that is, is there ``a substantial likelihood'' that a reasonable investor ``would consider it important'' in making an investment decision? Materiality is a mixed question of fact and law that depends on all the relevant circumstances. In some scenarios, it may be relatively clear that an upcoming Congressional action would be material to a particular issuer or group of issuers, while in others it may be more challenging to establish that. The third critical question is whether the information on which the Member or staff traded (or tipped) is ``nonpublic.'' The Commission has stated that ``[i]nformation is nonpublic when it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally.'' Whether information is ``nonpublic'' would likely depend on the circumstances under which the Member or staff learned the information and the extent to which the information had been disseminated to the public. As with all issues of liability with regard to insider trading and other claims under Section 10(b), the conduct at issue must be intentional or reckless. Since all of these issues are inherently fact-specific, it is difficult to generalize about the likely outcome of any particular scenario. However, trading by Congressional Members or their staffs is not exempt from the federal securities laws, including the insider trading prohibitions. Application of Tipper and Tippee Liability Theories to Members of Congress and Their Staff Communication of nonpublic information to others who either trade on the information themselves or share it with others for securities trading purposes, could be analyzed under the case law relating to tipper and tippee liability and also would turn on the specific facts of the case. A person can be liable as a tipper where he or she discloses information in breach of a fiduciary duty or other similar duty of trust or confidence and the tippee trades on the basis of that information. The same duty requirement described above is applicable in the tipper context, as are the requirements that the tipped information be nonpublic and material. In addition, a court may require a showing that the Member of Congress or staff member personally benefited from providing the tip. A person who trades on the basis of material, nonpublic information conveyed by a Member or staff member in breach of a duty also could be liable for illegal insider trading as a tippee. An additional element of liability is that the tippee knew or should have known of the tipper's breach of duty in disclosing the information. Investigations into potential trading or tipping by Members of Congress or their staff could pose some unique issues, including those that may arise from the Constitutional privilege provided to Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, cl.1. The Supreme Court has stated that ``[t]he Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch.'' The Clause ``protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge or threaten the legislative process.'' While the ``heart'' of the privilege is speech or debate in Congress, courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech and debate in certain circumstances. There may be circumstances in which communication of nonpublic information regarding legislative activity to a third party falls ``within the `sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' '' and thus may be protected by the privilege. Conclusion The SEC's continued focus on insider trading and innovative investigative techniques demonstrates our commitment to pursuing potentially suspicious trading in a variety of contexts. While recent innovations in the Division of Enforcement are enhancing our ability to obtain that evidence, to establish liability we must satisfy each of the elements of an insider trading violation, including the materiality of the information, the nonpublic nature of the information, the presence of scienter, and a fiduciary or other duty of trust and confidence that was violated by the trading or tipping. While trading by Members of Congress or their staff is not exempt from the federal securities laws, including the insider trading prohibitions, there are distinct legal and factual issues that may arise in any investigations or prosecutions of such cases. Any statutory changes in this area should be carefully calibrated to ensure that they do not narrow current law and thereby make it more difficult to bring future insider trading actions against individuals outside of Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. I now yield the floor to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Brown.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me first begin my remarks by commending my friend and colleague from Minnesota for leading the way on this very important bill. There are so many issues that divide us in this Chamber. Surely, this is an issue that should unite us. It is not a Democratic issue. It is not a Republican issue. It is an issue of serious consequence to the American people and to our health care system. I would hope--and the reason Senator Klobuchar and I have come to the floor today--that we can act immediately to pass our bill, get it through the House, and send it to the President. Physicians, pharmacists, and patients throughout the country are struggling to cope with the surge in shortages of needed drugs which is causing significant disruption in health care and putting patients at risk. I share with my colleague from Minnesota her concern about this critically important problem. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the number of drug shortages has nearly quadrupled over the last 6 years, jumping from 61 products in 2005 to a record 231 by the end of November of last year. And there appears to be no end in sight. Many of the drugs in short supply are vital. They are used in hospitals and cancer centers for anesthesia, for chemotherapy, and for the treatment of infections. There are also continuing shortages of drugs used in emergency rooms and in intensive care units. I have met with several doctors and other medical professionals and pharmacists in Maine who are extremely concerned about this issue. They have told me that these shortages are causing serious problems around our State and across our Nation, including forcing some medical centers to ration drugs or postpone elective surgeries. Even more tragic, oncologists have told me of situations where they have been forced to change a patient's chemotherapy regime midcourse because they suddenly encountered a shortage of a particular drug. Moreover, for some drugs, such as the leukemia drug Cytarabine, which Senator Klobuchar mentioned as well, there are no effective substitutes. This crisis is widespread. In a survey by the American Hospital Association, more than 80 percent of our hospitals reported that they have had to delay treatment due to the shortages. Just think what that is like for a patient who has received the diagnosis of cancer and has started treatment and then finds out the lifesaving drug they need is not available. It is hard enough to cope with the devastating diagnosis. To add to that the fact that the drug you need isn't available is just too much to bear. More than half of our hospitals have said they could not provide some of their patients with the recommended therapy. Drug shortages are also adding to the cost of care. Hospital pharmacists are having to spend additional time--some 8 to 12 hours per week--dealing with shortages, increasing labor costs by an estimated $216 million a year. That is why I joined with my colleague from Minnesota in cosponsoring the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act. Our bill will provide the FDA with better tools to better manage and, we hope, prevent shortages of lifesaving medications. First and foremost, it takes the very commonsense step of requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to notify the FDA of the discontinuance, interruption, or other adjustment in the manufacture of a drug that would likely lead to a shortage. Providing early warning when a drug will not be available will help both physicians and their patients. It builds on its successful model--the FDA's Drug Shortage Program--which encourages manufacturers to report potential or existing shortages so that the problems can be addressed or other manufacturers can ramp up their production. Through this voluntary approach, the FDA was able to avert 195 shortages last year. Our bill also directs the FDA to provide up-to-date public notification of any shortages, and it directs the FDA to work with manufacturers to establish contingency plans to address drug shortages due to manufacturing problems, such as the shortage of raw materials or reduction in production capabilities. Our legislation would give the FDA the information and the tools it needs to help address and prevent drug shortages. This, in turn, will help to ensure that our hospitals and health care professionals are able to provide the best care medical science allows. Most important, it will help ensure that patients have access to the medications they need when they need them most. I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota in sponsoring such an important initiative. I urge our colleagues on the HELP Committee to act quickly to report this bill and the full Senate to act without delay to approve it as well. Surely, this is an issue that should bring this Chamber together and that we should act on immediately.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, I commend Eliot Elementary School of Eliot, ME, on being named a 2011 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This prestigious recognition of high accomplishment was bestowed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools Award is considered the highest honor an American school can obtain. Schools singled out for this national recognition reflect the goals of our Nation's education reforms for high standards and accountability. Specifically, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is designed to honor public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. This award recognizes that Eliot Elementary students achieve at the highest level academically. Eliot Elementary School is a top-performing school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and customizing instruction. The school works closely with families to forge a strong school community where students are connected and encouraged to pursue their interests. I applaud not only the students but also the administrators, teachers, staff, and parents of Eliot Elementary School. Together, they are succeeding in their mission to generate excitement and momentum for learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students, helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible learners and citizens. I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Eliot Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the communities of Eliot and South Berwick for this outstanding achievement.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I would like to thank the senior Senator from Alaska and the senior Senator from Tennessee for joining me to discuss an issue of great concern to manufacturers across the country, the Environmental Protection Agency's Boiler MACT regulations. I am pleased to serve with both Senators on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on which the Senator from Alaska serves as the Ranking Member. It has been our shared goal to ensure that rules crafted by the EPA with regard to industrial boilers be achievable, affordable, and protective of public health and the environment while not costing thousands of jobs that we can ill-afford to lose. Unfortunately, EPA did not begin its rulemaking with these goals in mind. To provide EPA with the time the agency itself said it needed to rewrite the rules to better serve the public interest, I introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act earlier this year, which now has the support of 41 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. A nearly identical bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support this fall. With the reconsideration process, EPA has taken steps to respond to some of the concerns raised by U.S. manufacturers. EPA's re-proposed rules, however, still do not address the serious and real concerns of the mills that will be most directly affected by these regulations. Legislative action is still needed to ensure achievable rules, to allow adequate compliance time, and to reduce the risk to business posed by pending litigation. For these reasons, I was very troubled when the statement of the managers for Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 included the following: Boiler MACT.--The conferees are encouraged by the outcome of EPA's reconsideration of the Boiler MACT rule and offer no directives regarding Boiler MACT standards. The proposed rule addresses substantive concerns by including additional flexibility with respect to compliance costs, and a biomass exemption. Could the Senator from Alaska clarify that this language in no way is an endorsement by the conferees of any particular rulemaking concerning the Boiler MACT issue?

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for clarifying the intent of this language. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities. Would my friend the senior Senator from Tennessee, who is also an original co-sponsor of the Boiler MACT legislation, like to address this disappointing conference language?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to voice my concerns regarding two provisions included in the conference report, sections 321 and 327. These provisions constitute a major rewrite of depot policies and laws. These sections have not been sufficiently vetted. They could potentially hurt competition in acquisition programs, harm our public depots, and cause unintended consequences that could significantly affect not only depots, but also the private sector industrial base and the thousands of employees in both sectors. In February, the Logistics Management Institute, LMI, delivered a report to Congress making recommendations to modify the depot statutes. Both Armed Services Committees asked DOD to offer input on the LMI study, but the Department did not do so. The Senate held DOD to account in the committee report accompanying this very bill, which states: The committee is concerned that a lack of Department of Defense input regarding the findings and recommendations of the LMI study does not provide Congress with a comprehensive view prior to enacting legislation that could have unintended consequences. But even without DOD input, the House went ahead and included changes to depot provisions when it passed its bill in May. The Senate-passed bill also included a provision to prohibit any change to the definition of depot maintenance until after the Defense Business Board conducted its own study as well. Given the concern identified by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the requests for additional fact-based analysis, you can imagine my alarm when I learned that such a rewrite was being considered for inclusion in the conference report. What surprised me even more was that the proposed rewrite differed significantly even from the provision in the original House-passed bill. The Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, and I voiced our concerns about this in a meeting of the conferees. After that, six Senators and I sent a letter to the leadership of both committees warning of the unintended consequences of including these provisions in the conference report. I ask unanimous consent to have our letter printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. The two provisions raise a number of unanswered questions, questions that remain unanswered by the advocates of these provisions, and which could lead to significant consequences for public and private sector components of the industrial base. Let me share two examples. First, the provision expands the definition of depot maintenance to include the installation of modifications and upgrades to end-items--a measure potentially harmful to competition. There is a concern that the Army may be required by this provision to direct work related to the Modernized Expanded Capacity Vehicle, MECV, program to the public sector without a full and open competition allowing experienced private entities to bid. It is my view that the MECV is much more than a modification to a weapon system because it is an acquisition program. I understand this view is shared by the Army, which has consistently said the source selection for the MECV will be full, open, and fair. Those who have invested in this program deserve to know that this language does not restrict competition or introduce, in any way, an incentive to favor the public or the private sector as it relates to acquisition programs, and the MECV program in particular. While depot maintenance work is an important component of both the public and private sector industrial base, Congress has consistently supported a strong core requirement at the depots for national security reasons. For example, vital submarine overhauls, refueling, and maintenance work are performed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. It is unclear if the ramifications of the conference report will lead to work flowing away from our public depots, thus jeopardizing the government's core repair capability. I would ask the chairman to closely reevaluate these provisions to ensure that the two concerns I described, as well as the concerns of other interested Senators, are fully addressed. This process should allow Members adequate time to reach out to interested parties and a committee hearing to understand the ramifications of these legislative changes to the defense industrial base. I would also ask the chairman to commit to modifying or repealing these provisions, if necessary, in next year's NDAA. I would also ask the chairman to ensure that any future proposals pertaining to these sensitive issues be addressed in a more inclusive and deliberate manner. Finally, given the uncertainty and confusion surrounding these critical depot issues, I would hope that the Department of Defense would exercise much care and refrain from making dramatic changes in its policies.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, I commend Orono Middle School of Orono, ME, on being named a 2011 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This prestigious recognition of high accomplishment was bestowed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools award is considered the highest honor an American school can obtain. Schools singled out for this national recognition reflect the goals of our Nation's education reforms for high standards and accountability. Specifically, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is designed to honor public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. This award recognizes that Orono Middle School students achieve at the highest level academically. Orono Middle School is a top-performing school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and customizing instruction. The school also involves students in extracurricular activities, which helps forge a strong school community where students are connected and encouraged to pursue their interests. I applaud not only the students but also the teachers, staff, administrators, and parents of Orono Middle School. Together, they are succeeding in their mission to generate confidence and momentum for learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students, helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible learners and citizens. I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Orono Middle School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the entire community for this outstanding achievement.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the urgent need for our government to begin living within our Nation's means. We face a very grave fiscal crisis, one that threatens America today and the American dream for future generations. It demands that we get our Nation's fiscal house in order. So I am pleased the Senate is now debating a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. In February 1997, a month after I came to the Senate, I went to the Senate floor to urge my colleagues to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to prevent our growing debt from swallowing our future prosperity. Unfortunately, that effort came up one vote short. Since that time, our national debt has ballooned to an astonishing $15.1 trillion. Sometimes when we deal with large numbers, it is easy to lose sense of what they mean and difficult to put them into context. What $15.1 trillion in debt means is that a child born today will automatically inherit a debt burden of more than $48,000. That debt has been largely accrued not for that child's benefit but for our own. It is difficult to imagine a more egregious example of taxation without representation than forcing our children and grandchildren to bear the future tax burden for today's excesses. Unfortunately, as we have seen over the last decade, the addiction to budget deficits is not simply a Democratic or Republican problem. Both parties have had a difficult time showing restraint when it comes to spending. We have had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Deficit Reduction Act, and the Budget Enforcement Act, and yet deficits not only persist but have grown larger. The fiscal year that ended on September 30 marked the third consecutive year in which the United States has run deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Deficits have become a part of the way that Washington does business. Spend now and let someone else deal with the consequences later. Those spendthrift ways are catching up with us. Our skyrocketing debt has become a drag on our economy and a threat to our future prosperity. We simply do not have the luxury of putting off difficult decisions. We are consistently spending more than we take in, and by a large margin. In the last fiscal year, government outlays totaled 24.1 percent of gross domestic product--the second highest level, after 2009, since World War II. Despite the very serious warning signs that we are on the wrong fiscal course, this marks the second consecutive year that the Senate has not even bothered to pass a budget resolution. It is progress that the Budget Control Act that passed last summer includes caps on discretionary spending, and I have worked very hard with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to put together responsible and thoughtful spending bills that live within those caps. But, as my colleagues know, the biggest driver of our long-term debt and deficits is not discretionary spending but the mandatory spending that continues to balloon on autopilot. Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that the so-called supercommittee, which was created by the Budget Control Act, would be able to reach bipartisan agreement to reform mandatory spending and change our fiscal trajectory. Unfortunately, that bipartisan agreement remains elusive as both parties failed to come up with a deficit reduction plan that was capable of winning a simple majority of panel members. Instead, we have automatic spending cuts that are set to kick in, which could have very serious consequences for our national defense. Again, Congress has avoided making difficult choices about our national priorities. The events currently unfolding across the Atlantic, with European leaders scrambling to stop the debt contagion that threatens the economic prosperity of the continent, should be a clear warning signal to us of what could come if we do not stem the tide of red ink that is engulfing our Nation. We must put in place structural reforms that will permanently force Washington to align expenditures and revenues. Every day when I enter my office building, I am reminded of the famous quote attributed to its namesake, Senator Everett Dirksen. The wry observation he offered some four decades ago--``A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money''--seems tragically quaint today. I am convinced, now more than ever, that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is what is needed to address our growing debt and deficits.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, to create a commission with the goal of eliminating child abuse fatalities. The effort to address child abuse transcends ideological and partisan lines. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. One that we can't wish away, but that we must face head on and work to eradicate. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced a resolution recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Protect Our Kids Act further represents our commitment to put an end to child abuse in the United States. Child abuse fatalities are preventable; yet, approximately 1,770 children are reported as dying from child abuse each year, and many experts believe the actual number may be significantly higher. This legislation would establish a commission to develop a comprehensive national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. The commission will include a variety of professionals with expertise in areas such as child welfare advocacy, child development, pediatrics, medical examining, social work, law enforcement and education. Through new research, hearings and the use and coordination of existing information, the commission will provide a report with their recommendations. In order to develop a comprehensive strategy, the commission must consider several questions including what is the extent to which incidents of child abuse and neglect fatalities are increasing in number, how to develop a system to track and record incidents, and what models exist for preventing child maltreatment deaths. Increased understanding of maltreatment deaths can lead to improvement in agency systems and practices to protect children and prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to capitalize on the commission's findings. This legislation requires the commission's report to be submitted to relevant Federal agencies and Congressional committees. All agencies with recommendations that fall under their jurisdiction must then submit their reaction and plans to address such recommendations to Congress within 6 months. Approximately 6 million kids are reported to be abused or neglected each year. We know this can be prevented. This legislation is an important step that Congress and our Nation should take in order to better protect our kids.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, to create a commission with the goal of eliminating child abuse fatalities. The effort to address child abuse transcends ideological and partisan lines. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. One that we can't wish away, but that we must face head on and work to eradicate. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced a resolution recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Protect Our Kids Act further represents our commitment to put an end to child abuse in the United States. Child abuse fatalities are preventable; yet, approximately 1,770 children are reported as dying from child abuse each year, and many experts believe the actual number may be significantly higher. This legislation would establish a commission to develop a comprehensive national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. The commission will include a variety of professionals with expertise in areas such as child welfare advocacy, child development, pediatrics, medical examining, social work, law enforcement and education. Through new research, hearings and the use and coordination of existing information, the commission will provide a report with their recommendations. In order to develop a comprehensive strategy, the commission must consider several questions including what is the extent to which incidents of child abuse and neglect fatalities are increasing in number, how to develop a system to track and record incidents, and what models exist for preventing child maltreatment deaths. Increased understanding of maltreatment deaths can lead to improvement in agency systems and practices to protect children and prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to capitalize on the commission's findings. This legislation requires the commission's report to be submitted to relevant Federal agencies and Congressional committees. All agencies with recommendations that fall under their jurisdiction must then submit their reaction and plans to address such recommendations to Congress within 6 months. Approximately 6 million kids are reported to be abused or neglected each year. We know this can be prevented. This legislation is an important step that Congress and our Nation should take in order to better protect our kids.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. Our legislation provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer. Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last ten years of combat, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DoD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill. This legislation would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians. Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and amputations. Physical and occupational therapists play a critical role in the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery of wounded warriors. They not only serve in medical facilities, but are also embedded with combat brigade teams on the battlefield. They use their medical training and skill to overcome impairments, regardless of the cause to enable service members to overcome disability and succeed in all aspects of life. The idea for this bill came directly from a visit I had with a wounded Marine from Maine at the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in November. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg contains shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But, his spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat. However, when I asked him if he had any concerns, while he praised the care he was receiving, he said there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another nine months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda. While the Department of Defense reports that it does not face a shortage in these professions overall, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the active duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need. This bill is also endorsed by both the American Physical Therapy Association and the American Occupational Therapy Association, who agree this effort will help curtail a possible shortage of these valuable professionals in the future. I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding in this bill, it is simply an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professions that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. Our legislation provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer. Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last ten years of combat, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DoD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill. This legislation would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians. Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and amputations. Physical and occupational therapists play a critical role in the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery of wounded warriors. They not only serve in medical facilities, but are also embedded with combat brigade teams on the battlefield. They use their medical training and skill to overcome impairments, regardless of the cause to enable service members to overcome disability and succeed in all aspects of life. The idea for this bill came directly from a visit I had with a wounded Marine from Maine at the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in November. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg contains shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But, his spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat. However, when I asked him if he had any concerns, while he praised the care he was receiving, he said there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another nine months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda. While the Department of Defense reports that it does not face a shortage in these professions overall, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the active duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need. This bill is also endorsed by both the American Physical Therapy Association and the American Occupational Therapy Association, who agree this effort will help curtail a possible shortage of these valuable professionals in the future. I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding in this bill, it is simply an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professions that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy. Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for small business job creators to help spur job growth. Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained. Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding jobs. Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge- podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works. We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and computers. We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a ``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's job creators. Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159 million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time when the economy is still weak. With so many American families struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month. But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the source of our nation's job growth. We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the world. In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be viewed as unacceptable here in the United States. The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world, so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the worker with the best tools wins. The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep the American worker ahead of the global competition. There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has 800 million members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100 billion, but most important, both employ thousands of American workers. But without the right investment at the right time, these two companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high- tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American story. It is also important to help established companies stay on the cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit. Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S'' corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly, but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax on that income on their individual income tax returns. To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's job engine started again. If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they are ``the wealthy.'' They are not. We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it is not subject to the surtax. The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this means that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in the running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax, while those who are passive investors will pay higher rates. This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American workers more productive. Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill. With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting and public disclosure requirements. Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40 billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1 billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000 jobs. It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout the United States. I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but essential task. There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years. To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800 million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010 levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic, and public health benefits in our states and communities. Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs. As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth. All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices. Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order. Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements. In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin. Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure. One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply with these very complex and expensive rules. Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities. We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are being used as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-McCaskill bill requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative job training programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress that contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single agency. Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will be devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other half will be be used to reduce the deficit. In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy. Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for small business job creators to help spur job growth. Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained. Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding jobs. Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge- podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works. We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and computers. We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a ``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's job creators. Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159 million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time when the economy is still weak. With so many American families struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month. But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the source of our nation's job growth. We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the world. In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be viewed as unacceptable here in the United States. The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world, so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the worker with the best tools wins. The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep the American worker ahead of the global competition. There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has 800 million members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100 billion, but most important, both employ thousands of American workers. But without the right investment at the right time, these two companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high- tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American story. It is also important to help established companies stay on the cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit. Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S'' corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly, but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax on that income on their individual income tax returns. To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's job engine started again. If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they are ``the wealthy.'' They are not. We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it is not subject to the surtax. The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this means that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in the running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax, while those who are passive investors will pay higher rates. This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American workers more productive. Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill. With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting and public disclosure requirements. Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40 billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1 billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000 jobs. It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout the United States. I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but essential task. There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years. To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800 million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010 levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic, and public health benefits in our states and communities. Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs. As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth. All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices. Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order. Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements. In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin. Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure. One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply with these very complex and expensive rules. Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities. We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are being used as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-McCaskill bill requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative job training programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress that contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single agency. Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will be devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other half will be be used to reduce the deficit. In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.