Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make affordable health care available to millions more Americans. One of my priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern. These cost increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Maine small business owners want to provide coverage for their employees, but they are caught in a cost squeeze. They know that if they pass on premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, is a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches. The legislation's seven goals are: one, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which in turn drives up health care premiums. Let me discuss each of these seven points in greater detail. First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 per cent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help these employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs. Our legislation will also provide grants to provide start-up funding to States to help businesses to form group purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will enable small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. This will help to reduce their costs and improve the quality of their employee's health care. The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current incentives under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are simply not aware of laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the Nation. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families. One of the first bills that I sponsored when I came to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Child Health Insurance Program, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Since 1997, this program, which is known as SCHIP, has contributed to a one-third decline in the uninsured rate of low-income children. Today, over six million children--including approximately 14,500 in Maine-- receive health care coverage through this remarkably effective health care program. First, our legislation will shore up the looming shortfalls in SCHIP funding that 17 states--including Maine--will face in Fiscal Year 2007 to ensure that children currently enrolled in the program do not lose their coverage. Just prior to adjournment in December, the Congress approved legislation to partially address these shortfalls. That legislation, however, provides only about one-fifth of the funds needed. Our legislation will close that gap. Our legislation also builds on the success of the SCHIP program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. The bill authorizes new grants for States and non- profit organizations to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment efforts to ensure that all eligible children are covered. States would also have the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need. And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to six million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help. To strengthen our nation's health care safety net, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act calls for a doubling of funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved urban and rural communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated in Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our nation's health care safety net. The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore calls for increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas. The legislation will also give the program greater flexibility by allowing National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full-time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider on a full-time basis. Our bill therefore gives the program additional flexibility to meet community needs. As the Senate co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly sensitive to the long-term care needs of patients with chronic diseases like Alzheimer's and their families. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance. Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors--smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine. Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Maine's Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment. And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and subsequent legislation did take some significant steps toward promoting greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. The legislation we are introducing today will build on those improvements by establishing State pilot programs that reward providers of high- quality, cost-efficient Medicare services. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system and by strengthening the health care safety net.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 1, a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process. The recent elections sent a clear message to Congress that the American people have lost confidence in their government. Without the support of the people, we cannot tackle the difficult issues that this Congress must face. This bill, then, is a critical part of restoring the people's trust by reforming ethics and lobbying rules. It is important to remember that the conduct of most Members and their staffs is beyond reproach. Likewise, it is important to recognize that lobbying--whether done on behalf of the business community, an environmental organization, a children's advocacy group, or any other cause--can provide us with useful information and analysis that aids, but does not dictate, the decision-making process. Unfortunately, in the minds of many Americans, ``lobbying'' has come to be associated with expensive paid vacations masquerading as fact-finding trips, special access to Members and staff that an ordinary citizen could never hope to have, and undue influence that leads to decisions made in the best interest of the lobbyist and his or her client instead of the American people. S. 1 which is nearly identical to a bill that was the product of bipartisan efforts by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and that was passed by this Senate just last year-- includes a number of important provisions that will help to restore the public image of the United States Congress. S. 1 bans gifts from lobbyists. This is clear, brightline rule that diminishes the appearance of impropriety that gifts can create. S. 1 requires greater disclosure of the sponsors of and the purposes for earmarks included in a bill so that the people can know where tax dollars are being spent and why. S. 1 eliminates floor privileges for former Members who are seeking to lobby other members. They will enjoy no more access to Senators and Congressmen than any other citizen. S. 1 will eliminate the practice of anonymous holds in the Senate so that we can bring debate into the open and not simply kill a bill with a secret hold. S. 1 will require enhanced disclosure of the activities of groups lobbying Congress so that the public can easily find out which interests are trying to influence the decisions we make. S. 1 will slow the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector by limiting the ability of departing Members and staff to lobby their former colleagues. While I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, I also believe strongly that it would be improved by the addition of an independent Office of Public Integrity within the Legislative Branch. This Office would be able to conduct nonpartisan investigations of possible ethics violations. These investigations would help to promote public confidence in the enforcement of any laws that we pass to enhance congressional ethics. During debate on this bill last year, an amendment that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I offered to create this Office was defeated. However, I hope my colleagues have taken the lessons of the recent elections to heart and that the idea of an Office of Public Integrity will be approved this year. To that end, I am also cosponsoring Senator McCain's lobbying reform package, which he has introduced today and which contains a number of the provisions of S. 1 as well as creating an independent Office of Public Integrity. I once again commend my colleagues on recognizing the importance of this issue by making it our first priority in the 110th Congress. I urge the Senate to work quickly to get this legislation finished so that we can move on from the task of governing ourselves and get down to the business of governing our Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make affordable health care available to millions more Americans. One of my priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. As many as 46 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern. These cost increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Maine small business owners want to provide coverage for their employees, but they are caught in a cost squeeze. They know that if they pass on premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, is a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches. The legislation's seven goals are: one, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which in turn drives up health care premiums. Let me discuss each of these seven points in greater detail. First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that as many as 83 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 63 per cent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help these employers cope with rising costs by creating new tax credits for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs. Our legislation will also provide grants to provide start-up funding to States to help businesses to form group purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will enable small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. This will help to reduce their costs and improve the quality of their employee's health care. The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current incentives under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are simply not aware of laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the Nation. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families. One of the first bills that I sponsored when I came to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Child Health Insurance Program, which provides insurance for the children of low-income parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Since 1997, this program, which is known as SCHIP, has contributed to a one-third decline in the uninsured rate of low-income children. Today, over six million children--including approximately 14,500 in Maine-- receive health care coverage through this remarkably effective health care program. First, our legislation will shore up the looming shortfalls in SCHIP funding that 17 states--including Maine--will face in Fiscal Year 2007 to ensure that children currently enrolled in the program do not lose their coverage. Just prior to adjournment in December, the Congress approved legislation to partially address these shortfalls. That legislation, however, provides only about one-fifth of the funds needed. Our legislation will close that gap. Our legislation also builds on the success of the SCHIP program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. The bill authorizes new grants for States and non- profit organizations to conduct innovative outreach and enrollment efforts to ensure that all eligible children are covered. States would also have the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need. And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to six million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help. To strengthen our nation's health care safety net, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act calls for a doubling of funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved urban and rural communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated in Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our nation's health care safety net. The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore calls for increased funding for the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas. The legislation will also give the program greater flexibility by allowing National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full-time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider on a full-time basis. Our bill therefore gives the program additional flexibility to meet community needs. As the Senate co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly sensitive to the long-term care needs of patients with chronic diseases like Alzheimer's and their families. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase long-term care insurance. Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors--smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine. Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Maine's Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment. And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote greater equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and subsequent legislation did take some significant steps toward promoting greater fairness by increasing Medicare payments to rural hospitals and by modifying geographic adjustment factors that discriminated against physicians and other providers in rural areas. The legislation we are introducing today will build on those improvements by establishing State pilot programs that reward providers of high- quality, cost-efficient Medicare services. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system and by strengthening the health care safety net.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Lincoln Chafee came to the Senate in 1999 under the most difficult of circumstances. He had just lost his beloved father, and was being asked to fill the shoes of one of the most noble and principled Members ever to serve in this Chamber. He rose to that challenge, and I have been honored to work alongside him. Like the illustrious Senator John Chafee, Senator Lincoln Chafee came from a political tradition I am proud to share--that of the New England moderate. This tradition stands for a strong defense of freedom and for fiscal responsibility, for government that is unobtrusive in people's lives when it can be, yet compassionate and involved when it must be. Lincoln Chafee was a quiet voice of moderation, but spoke with a strong voice, a voice of conviction and integrity, on such issues of critical importance to our Nation as environmental protection and energy independence. When, in the spring of 2005, the very fabric of the Senate was threatened by a bitter impasse over the issue of judicial filibusters, I was proud to join Senator Chafee in the so- called gang of 14 that forged a productive, bipartisan solution. I had the opportunity to work closely with Linc in the 109th Congress when he joined the Homeland Security Committee. The committee brought about great progress during that Congress with successful legislation on port security, chemical security, and rebuilding our Nation's emergency management structure after the catastrophic government response to Hurricane Katrina. Linc's steady, thoughtful, and informed approach to the issues greatly aided these endeavors. I was especially impressed by Linc's understanding that true homeland security begins at home. As the 2006 hurricane season approached, and as we were still struggling to overcome the failures of government in the 2005 season, he called for and organized a Homeland Security field hearing in Rhode Island so his colleagues could better appreciate the daunting challenges faced by our first responders in coastal States and communities. That hands-on approach, devoid of pretense and directed toward results, exemplifies Lincoln Chafee's approach to government. I know that the father would be proud of the son. And I know that all Americans join me in thanking Lincoln Chafee for 7 years of outstanding service, and in wishing him the very best in the years to come. tribute to senator frist Mr. President, As we come to the close of a Congress that has seen too much partisan struggle, it has been heartening to observe the bipartisan outpouring of deep respect and kind regard for the retiring senior Senator from Tennessee, Doctor Bill Frist. I join in that praise. Senator Frist has exemplified the collegial traditions of the Senate, balancing forthright advocacy for his views and for his party's positions with courtesy and respect for those who disagreed with him. He has been an effective Senator for his beloved State of Tennessee, a skillful leader for his party caucus, and a gentleman in his dealings with Senate colleagues. We all know that many of our fellow citizens are cynical about Congress, seeing this branch of government as a haven for politicians fixated on short-term political advantage and personal aggrandizement. They should take note of people like Senator Frist, who is truly an example of a Renaissance man in government. If a writer created a protagonist with the interests and accomplishments that Senator Frist has shown, an editor would be nervous about taxing readers' credulity. Yet the facts are plain. Our friend from Tennessee is not only a hard-working and successful political leader, but also a surgeon, a teacher, a philanthropist, an author, an aircraft pilot, a marathon runner, and a devoted family man. Members of Congress have many opportunities to enact measures that will protect, enrich, and save lives. But we usually act at a distance, as agencies use the authorities and carry out the mandates we create. Few of us can take credit for personally saving lives as Doctor Frist has done many times at the operating table. And few of us can bring to bear the combination of professional training and personal dedication that he has displayed on his repeated medical missions to Africa and in his policy work on the HIV-AIDS crisis. He was also the first doctor on the spot for the 1998 shootings of two Capitol Police officers, and he ably served as an informed spokesman for Congress during the 2001 anthrax attacks in the Capitol mail system. Senator Frist has served his party well. As chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, he helped restore the party's majority in the Senate. As the unanimously elected majority leader, he served both his party and his country well on policy matters like tax- law changes that eased burdens on citizens and encouraged growth in business activity and employment. Senator Frist also supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and the creation of Health Savings Accounts--measures that have saved billions of dollars for the elderly and given millions of Americans new opportunities for controlling their health-care costs. These are especially helpful legislative initiatives in States like my native Maine, where the proportions of senior citizens, small-business owners, and the self-employed are significant. Senator Frist leaves this chamber with an overflowing and bipartisan store of goodwill and gratitude. I am pleased to be among the many Senators offering thanks for his years of service and best wishes for many years of good works to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will consider H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. As the Presiding Officer is very well aware, since he has been a key player in molding this important legislation, this postal reform legislation has been a long time coming. And it is great news for the U.S. economy. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began back in 2002 when a group of constituents came to me, sat down with me in Maine, and taught me the importance of the Postal Service to the viability of their businesses and to the employees they had. This coalition of groups included a Maine catalog company, a paper manufacturer, a printer, a local financial services company, and a publisher. They all came together and it was from them that I learned just how vital the Postal Service is to our economy. So shortly after that meeting in the summer of 2002, I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential commission charged with examining the problems of the Postal Service and charged with developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that the Congress and the Postal Service could implement. The President appointed the members of the commission. They worked very hard. They came up with an excellent report which provided, in many ways, the basis for the landmark legislation that I believe we will finally clear tonight. During the next 4 years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which I had been privileged to chair, worked very hard to craft the most sweeping changes in the U.S. Postal Service in more than 30 years. Senate passage of this legislation will help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century. As a Senator representing a large rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents, whether they live in the northern woods or on our islands or in our many small rural communities, have the same access to Postal Services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communications link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at the affordable rates charged by the Postal Service. But for several years now, the Postal Service has clung to the edge of an abyss. Under the business model in which it has been forced to operate, the Postal Service has been at great financial risk. In fact, the Government Accountability Office aptly describes it as a potential death spiral in which escalating rates lead to lower volume, which in turn leads to even higher rates, which in turn causes the Postal Service to lose more business. The Postal Service faces the challenge of the electronic age. It also has been saddled with more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which has included debt to the Treasury, nearly $7 billion to workers' comp claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, has cited these figures to point to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout for a dramatic postal rate increase.'' And it is telling, indeed, that the Postal Service has been on GAO's high-risk list since April of 2001. With this landmark reform legislation, we will put the Postal Service on a firm financial footing. We endorse the principle of universal service, of affordable, predictable postal rates. This legislation will modernize the Postal Service's rate-setting process and provide much- needed rate predictability for postal customers. Without this reform, postal ratepayers would have faced billions of dollars in higher--much higher--rates over the next several years. The 750,000 career employees of the Postal Service often labor without anyone really knowing who they are, but their efforts play an absolutely essential role in the American economy. The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs 9 million people in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, publishing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service, therefore, is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions of employees they serve. This bill represents years of hard work. As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with our House colleagues, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's commission and we heard from a wide range of experts and stakeholders, including representatives of the postal employees unions, the Postal Service itself, administration officials, mailers, the postmasters, postal supervisors, publishers--a wide variety of groups. In fact, there is a broad coalition supporting this bill, including many nonprofit mailers, which rely on affordable postal rates. There are many people who have worked very hard to craft the very delicate compromise that is before us tonight. I particularly thank Senators Carper, Coleman, and Lieberman for their assistance but also our House colleagues. I will have more to say about them later. The compromise legislation before the Senate replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for products such as first class mail, periodicals, and library mail. For 10 years, the price changes for market-dominant products like these will be subject to a 45-day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The Postal Service will have much more flexibility, but the rates will be capped at the CPI. That is an important element of providing 10 years of predictable, affordable rates, which will help every customer of the Postal Service plan. After 10 years, the Postal Regulatory Commission will review the rate cap and, if necessary, and following a notice and comment period, the Commission will be authorized to modify or adopt an alternative system. While this bill provides for a decade of rate stability, I continue to believe that the preferable approach was the permanent flexible rate cap that was included in the Senate-passed version of this legislation. But, on balance, this bill is simply too important, and that is why we have reached this compromise to allow it to pass. We at least will see a decade of rate stability, and I believe the Postal Rate Commission, at the end of that decade, may well decide that it is best to continue with a CPI rate cap in place. It is also, obviously, possible for Congress to act to reimpose the rate cap after it expires. But this legislation is simply too vital to our economy to pass on a decade of stability. The consequences of no legislation would be disastrous for the Postal Service, its employees, and its customers. Among other highlights of the compromise, the bill will reform the Postal Service workers' compensation system to require a 3-day waiting period. This is consistent with every State workers' compensation program. The bill introduces new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets, prohibits subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products, and requires an allocation of institutional costs to competitive products. I note that we looked at competitive issues with UPS and FedEx, and I think we have come up with the right balance here. The bill transforms the existing Postal Rate Commission into the Postal Regulatory Commission with enhanced authority to ensure that there is greater oversight of the Postal Service as its management assumes greater responsibility. The bill reaffirms postal employees' rights to collectively bargain. It changes the bargaining process only in small ways and only in ways that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. Another significant provision amends the current law to essentially free up $78 billion over 6 years. This is a complicated issue. It has to do with the responsibility for paying for the military retirement credits of postal employees and also money that was put into an escrow account to compensate for an overpayment into the civil service retirement system. These savings will be used to pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury, to fund health care liabilities, and to mitigate future rate increases. This compromise is not perfect and, indeed, earlier tonight, there were issues raised by the appropriators--legitimate issues--that threatened at one point to derail the bill again. It has been a delicate compromise to satisfy all of the competing concerns. Everyone has had to compromise, but I think we have come up with a good bill. This compromise will help ensure a strong financial future for the U.S. Postal Service and the many sectors of our economy that rely on its services, and it reaffirms our commitment to the principle of universal service that I believe is absolutely vital to this institution. Finally, there are so many people both within Congress, within the administration, and among the stakeholders who have worked very hard to bring this legislation to a successful conclusion. I cannot name them all, but I want to name some of them. Senator Carper and his staffer, John Kilvington, have been here every step of the way. Senator Carper was the original cosponsor of the bill and has worked very hard to bring the compromise about. Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Akaka, and Voinovich also have played very important roles. Our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, have been vitally interested and have helped us get this job done. In the House, Chairman Tom Davis and the ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of the Government Reform Committee, also worked hard to produce a bill and to work with us to bring about the compromise. A true hero of this effort, a person who worked on postal issues for a decade, is Congressman John McHugh. The administration has played an absolutely critical role in bringing us to where we are today. The administration often doesn't get credit for that, and they deserve credit. They have worked with us to come up with solutions on the financial issues in this bill, and without the strong support of the administration, we would not be here tonight. I want to particularly salute OMB Director Rob Portman; Michael Bopp, my former staff director, who is now working at OMB and brought his expertise to bear on this issue; Jess Sharp and Candi Wolff of the White House staff; and of course the staff of the Postal Service itself, which was always there with expertise, particularly Kim Weaver. But most of all, I thank Ann Fisher of my staff, who has worked for years on this bill. This has been an issue which has meant a great deal to her, and she has been working on postal issues for a long time. She is a recognized expert, and without her expertise, we would not be here tonight. I finally also want to thank the committee's new staff director, Brandon Milhorn, for bringing his judgment to bear on this issue. There are so many people who have worked so hard, but the collective effort of everyone has produced a bill of which we can be proud. It is not a perfect bill, but I am convinced it will put the U.S. Postal Service on a sound financial footing for years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the legislation to extend various provisions of the Nation's tax laws which is now before the Senate includes a 2-year extension of the $250 tax deduction available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase classroom supplies. This extension builds upon the $250 tax deduction established by legislation which became law in 2001 as part of that year's tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that bill was later extended through the end of last year. I was proud to author that legislation, along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator Landrieu. Providing this deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine and throughout the country spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. One such teacher is Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.'' Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just 2 years, Tyler incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well over $500 out of pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.'' The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a small but significant way of helping teachers shoulder the expenses they incur to do their jobs well. Extending this provision for another 2 years demonstrates our gratitude and sends the right message to our Nation's teachers.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote on the pending nomination occur at 5 p.m. today, with the time until the vote equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees; further, that 20 minutes of the chairman's time be allocated to Senator Specter; provided further that immediately following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 5123 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I again want to commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I mentioned we have 24 cosponsors of the amendment. I did want to acknowledge that Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman have played important roles in drafting this bill, and both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, are cosponsors as well. Finally, I want to thank the two floor managers, Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein, for working with us on this bill. Senator Feinstein is also a cosponsor of it, and I very much appreciate Senator Hutchison assisting us to bring this to the floor. So I say thank you to my colleagues. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on the amendment, I ask that the amendment be brought to a voice vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5144

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment, which the Senator from Wisconsin and I have offered, would ensure continuing vigorous, aggressive oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. This office will be prematurely terminated by provisions that were recently enacted as part of the conference report on the Defense authorization bill. Our amendment will restore the special IG's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of the funds for the Iraqi reconstruction projects have been expended. The special IG has been very effective, and the important work of this watchdog must continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction. We should not terminate this mandate to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by some arbitrary and premature date. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that we would terminate this office which has played such a vital role in spotlighting waste, fraud, and abuse and has more than proven its worth. The Office of the Special Inspector General has saved the American taxpayers literally millions of dollars. In fact, when one looks at the combined impact of the audits, the investigations, the cost avoidances, and other savings, the potential financial impact of this office has been nearly $2 billion. Yet the office has cost the American taxpayers only $73 million since it was created. So $2 billion in savings, in cost avoidances, versus a cost of only $73 million. This means that for every dollar the special inspector general has spent, there has been a financial impact of $25--an impressive ratio. There is no question that the inspector general's office has been extremely effective. Its work has led to convictions, to indictments, to the recovery of funds, and to improvement in contracting. It was the inspector general who told us about cost overruns on contracts-- Halliburton contracts, for example. It was the inspector general who highlighted shoddy construction of health clinics, of a special police station. It was the inspector general who made recommendations that have improved contracting oversight and procedures in Iraq. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. It makes absolutely no sense at all for this office, which has been such an effective watchdog, to be brought to a premature end. Some people say: Why can't you just have the regular IG from the Department of Defense or the Department of State or USAID undertake this work? I think in many ways the question answers itself. There are many departments and agencies that are involved in the Iraqi reconstruction projects. We need to have a special IG who has the authority to follow the money no matter from what agency or department it originated. Also, the special IG has proven its worth time and again. The special IG is in Iraq even as we speak and has had a team on the ground in harm's way. Also, the DOD IG's office has not had a team on the ground in Iraq auditing, inspecting, and investigating on an ongoing basis. I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Wisconsin who has been such a leader in this area, who originated the idea of having a special inspector general in the first place, and I was very pleased to partner with him in that effort years ago. Let's correct this mistake right off so that the office doesn't have to start shutting down its operations in anticipation of the termination date next October. We can remedy this mistake right now, and we should do so. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 5123.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, that is certainly fine with me. I was trying to follow the direction I got from the chairman and the floor manager when we talked a few minutes ago. But if she wants to pursue this and proceed as she has suggested, I have no objection, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators John McCain, Bill Nelson, and Judd Gregg be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Feingold and I are introducing the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation, is co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Leahy, Coleman, Cantwell, Salazar, Kerry and Coburn, has a single purpose: to ensure continuing, vigorous oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). This legislation would restore SIGIR's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of Iraq reconstruction funds have been expended. It would repeal conference language in the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that would close SIGIR on October 1, 2007, and transfer oversight to the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Departmental and agency Inspectors General perform an important service with dedication and expertise. However, those offices are configured to provide audits, inspections, and investigations of continuing government operations. The traditional approach of IG oversight--extensive inquiries, lengthy preparation and delivery of reports, recommendations for corrective action--is thorough. But it also is time-consuming and can allow wasteful or fraudulent practices to continue for some time. Iraq reconstruction is a unique situation, with enormous amounts of money being spent in a relatively short period of time on a specific range of programs and operations. A number of agencies across the federal government are active in Iraq reconstruction, including the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice and others. Reconstruction managers, and ultimately the taxpayers, do not have the luxury of waiting months to receive recommendations to correct wasteful or fraudulent practices. Oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires that the Inspector General be able to cross departmental boundaries and deliver the results of his work quickly and efficiently. Effective oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires the unique approach provided by the SIGIR. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen described this approach in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a hearing on August 2. SIGIR's auditors and inspectors provide on-the-spot guidance to managers as soon as problems are discovered, so corrective action can begin immediately. This ``real time'' method allows most of his reports to document not only how problems were detected, but also how they were corrected. This method works. It should continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction, not terminate on some arbitrary and premature date. As of October 30, 2006, SIGIR estimates that the financial impact of its audit operations is $441 billion, its investigative operations is $20 million and its inspection operations is $1.44 billion. It has achieved these results while costing the taxpayer $72 million. This means that for every dollar SIGIR has spent there has been a financial impact of $25 dollars, a very impressive ratio. SIGIR has also opened 256 cases thus far, and has either referred for prosecution or cleared 164. SIGIR has an impressive record. The Office has 92 open cases, with 25 of them at the Department of Justice. SIGIR has issued 73 audit reports and 65 project assessments. Its work has led to the arrests of five people, and the convictions of four, with more than $17 million in assets seized. During the current quarter, SIGIR investigators opened 20 new cases and closed 10. There is no question that SIGIR has proven itself to be a much-needed watchdog, auditing reconstruction contracts in Iraq and spotlighting numerous cases of waste, fraud and abuse. We must keep this watchdog on the job. In addition, SIGIR has taken on a mission that will benefit our nation long after the Iraq reconstruction efforts conclude. Through its Lessons Learned Initiative, the experience gained in Iraq--and the methods developed to track, evaluate, and correct programs--will provide critical guidance to managers and policymakers in the future. The efficient and speedy SIGIR approach would have helped the initial urgent stages of Katrina recovery immeasurably, and it will be invaluable in the aftermath of new disasters to come. SIGIR has performed admirably in the most difficult of circumstances. Mr. Bowen and his exemplary staff have put themselves in harm's way numerous times. This incredible dedication is reflected in their work, which provides a high degree of oversight and accountability that is essential for Iraq reconstruction to succeed, and it is creating a template for success in the challenges that lie ahead. I urge my colleagues to support the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today Senator Feingold and I are introducing the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation, is co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Leahy, Coleman, Cantwell, Salazar, Kerry and Coburn, has a single purpose: to ensure continuing, vigorous oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). This legislation would restore SIGIR's termination date to its previous schedule of 10 months after 80 percent of Iraq reconstruction funds have been expended. It would repeal conference language in the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that would close SIGIR on October 1, 2007, and transfer oversight to the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Departmental and agency Inspectors General perform an important service with dedication and expertise. However, those offices are configured to provide audits, inspections, and investigations of continuing government operations. The traditional approach of IG oversight--extensive inquiries, lengthy preparation and delivery of reports, recommendations for corrective action--is thorough. But it also is time-consuming and can allow wasteful or fraudulent practices to continue for some time. Iraq reconstruction is a unique situation, with enormous amounts of money being spent in a relatively short period of time on a specific range of programs and operations. A number of agencies across the federal government are active in Iraq reconstruction, including the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice and others. Reconstruction managers, and ultimately the taxpayers, do not have the luxury of waiting months to receive recommendations to correct wasteful or fraudulent practices. Oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires that the Inspector General be able to cross departmental boundaries and deliver the results of his work quickly and efficiently. Effective oversight of Iraq reconstruction requires the unique approach provided by the SIGIR. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen described this approach in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a hearing on August 2. SIGIR's auditors and inspectors provide on-the-spot guidance to managers as soon as problems are discovered, so corrective action can begin immediately. This ``real time'' method allows most of his reports to document not only how problems were detected, but also how they were corrected. This method works. It should continue as long as American funds are being used for Iraq reconstruction, not terminate on some arbitrary and premature date. As of October 30, 2006, SIGIR estimates that the financial impact of its audit operations is $441 billion, its investigative operations is $20 million and its inspection operations is $1.44 billion. It has achieved these results while costing the taxpayer $72 million. This means that for every dollar SIGIR has spent there has been a financial impact of $25 dollars, a very impressive ratio. SIGIR has also opened 256 cases thus far, and has either referred for prosecution or cleared 164. SIGIR has an impressive record. The Office has 92 open cases, with 25 of them at the Department of Justice. SIGIR has issued 73 audit reports and 65 project assessments. Its work has led to the arrests of five people, and the convictions of four, with more than $17 million in assets seized. During the current quarter, SIGIR investigators opened 20 new cases and closed 10. There is no question that SIGIR has proven itself to be a much-needed watchdog, auditing reconstruction contracts in Iraq and spotlighting numerous cases of waste, fraud and abuse. We must keep this watchdog on the job. In addition, SIGIR has taken on a mission that will benefit our nation long after the Iraq reconstruction efforts conclude. Through its Lessons Learned Initiative, the experience gained in Iraq--and the methods developed to track, evaluate, and correct programs--will provide critical guidance to managers and policymakers in the future. The efficient and speedy SIGIR approach would have helped the initial urgent stages of Katrina recovery immeasurably, and it will be invaluable in the aftermath of new disasters to come. SIGIR has performed admirably in the most difficult of circumstances. Mr. Bowen and his exemplary staff have put themselves in harm's way numerous times. This incredible dedication is reflected in their work, which provides a high degree of oversight and accountability that is essential for Iraq reconstruction to succeed, and it is creating a template for success in the challenges that lie ahead. I urge my colleagues to support the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to your support in addressing FEMA's role in the emergency alert system in legislation next year.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent since the Senator from Alaska yields back his 5 minutes that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleague from Alaska about the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, or WARN Act, that is part of the SAFE Port Act that is before the Senate. The WARN Act will authorize a wireless alert capability to provide citizens with emergency alerts on their wireless devices. This is an important enhancement to the emergency alert system that FEMA currently operates. I would note that the language in the WARN Act does not alter FEMA's role in the emergency alert system. It is my understanding that this language directing the FCC to develop the wireless capabilities will not interfere with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee considering and reporting legislation next year to further clarify FEMA's role with respect to the emergency alert system and new technologies. Is that correct?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly this evening, the Senate will adopt the conference report on the SAFE Port Act. This conference report includes all of the major port security improvements that were included in the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 that passed the Senate just 2 weeks ago. It has been strengthened by including some of the provisions in the companion House bill. This is a major accomplishment for this Congress that will help to strengthen our Homeland Security in ways that really matter. The original template for the SAFE Port Act was the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act I introduced with Senator Murray, Senator Coleman and Senator Lieberman almost a year ago. I commend Senator Murray for her steadfast commitment to strengthening port security. I also thank the Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman, for his leadership. He has chaired three hearings on cargo security that helped identify the vulnerabilities and shortfalls in the current systems. That investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in fact, helped inform our legislation and, indeed, all of the problems that the Presiding Officer identified in his hearings have been addressed in this landmark legislation. I also commend the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who helped to shepherd this bill through our committee. This has truly been a bipartisan bicameral effort. It represents the Senate at its best. As a result, we have been able to produce significant legislation. America's 361 seaports are vital elements in our Nation's transportation network. Last year, some 11 million shipping containers came into this country. Now, when we look at the shipping containers, we hope they simply contain consumer goods or parts or other useful objects. But, in fact, every one of these 11 million shipping containers has the potential to be the Trojan horse of the 21st century. The vulnerability of our cargo is perhaps best illustrated by an incident that happened in Seattle earlier this year. In April, 22 Chinese nationals were caught as they attempted to leave a shipping container. Those illegal aliens transited in a shipping container all the way from China to our shores to the port of Seattle. This container could have just as easily have contained not people seeking a better way of life but people seeking to destroy our way of life. There could have been a squad of terrorists in that container. There could have been the makings of a dirty bomb. There could have even been a small nuclear device. That is the vulnerability of the current system. In fact, the containers have been called the poor man's missile because a low budget terrorist could ship one across our oceans to a United States port for only a few thousand dollars. The stakes are very high. If you visit a port like Seattle, as I have, you see that the port is located in the midst of a large urban population, with two stadiums close by, with ferries bringing thousands of visitors. The loss of life would be devastating. But there is another impact of a possible attack on our ports; that is, the economic loss that would ensue. We are aware that many plants and retailers now rely on just-in-time inventories that bring goods to their stores. I think we should look back at 9/11 and look at what happened to our system of commercial aircraft when we had the attacks on our airplanes. In fact, commercial aircraft were grounded for a number of days. And just as that happened 5 years ago, an attack on any one of our ports would most likely result in the closure of all ports, and the economic consequences would be devastating. It would affect the farmers in the Midwest, who would be unable to ship their crops. It would affect retailers across the country, who would soon have empty shelves. It would affect factories that would be forced to shut down and lay off workers because of the loss of vital parts. The best example I can give you of what the economic impact would be is to look back at the west coast dock strike of 2002. Unlike any terror attack, that was both peaceful and anticipated, and yet it cost the economy $1 billion a day for each of the 10 days it lasted. Since the attacks on our country 5 years ago, there have been some actions taken to improve security at our seaports. For example, the Department of Homeland Security instituted several important port security programs such as the Container Security Initiative and what is known as C-TPAT, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program. Unfortunately, the investigation led by the Senator from Minnesota has demonstrated that those programs have been very unevenly implemented. Some have lagged, and some have not been effective because there has not been the proper verification that has been needed. What our legislation would do is provide the structures and the resources to strengthen those programs. The legislation before us is a comprehensive approach that addresses all levels and all major aspects of maritime cargo security. It will require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for all transportation modes by which cargo moves into, within, and out of U.S. ports. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop protocols for restarting our ports if there were an incident, which we certainly hope this legislation will prevent or help prevent any attack on our seaports, but if one does occur, it is essential the Federal Government have a plan for reopening the ports and releasing cargo as soon as possible. Unfortunately, and in my opinion amazingly, we do not have such a plan today. So we will require the Department of Homeland Security to develop such a plan. We authorize $400 million for each of the next 5 years in risk-based port security grants. We also authorize training and exercises that we know are key to preparedness and effective response. We improve and expand several security programs, such as the Container Security Initiative, the C-TPAT Program, and we establish deadlines for action on these programs. We provide additional incentives for shippers and importers to meet the highest level of cargo-security standards. We also make sure the Department is meeting deadlines for such essential programs as the TWIC Program. Another critical provision in this bill is the requirement that all containers at our 22 largest ports be scanned for radiation by the end of next year. All the 22 largest ports, which handle 98 percent or virtually all cargo, would be required to have radiation detection devices in place by the end of next year. We also expand the radiation scanning that is done at foreign ports through the CSI program and the Megaports program. Obviously, our goal is to push off our shores and keep the danger from ever getting to our shores in the first place. Another security measure is the vital transportation Worker Identification Credential, or the so-called TWIC, Program. It has languished for years, and it should not have because the TWIC Program is necessary to control access to port facilities and vessels, and it is a vital program. We also--I know this has been of great interest to the Presiding Officer--establish a pilot program with real deadlines and real results at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of doing a nonintrusive scan; in other words, sort of an x ray of every container, have that scan actually analyzed, and combine it with a radiation scan. That is going to allow us, eventually, to get to the goal, once the technology is there, of a 100-percent integrated scanning program. There is still work to be done to address security for other modes of transportation, such as rail and mass transit. But tonight we should take great pride in the great progress we have made in strengthening the security of our seaports. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to take note of the real progress this Congress has made and is on the verge of making in strengthening our homeland security. This progress--reform of FEMA, protection of our chemical facilities and improved security for our seaports--should not be overlooked as we conclude a hectic month. In the midst of all the charges that Congress has failed to accomplish all that we should, I want to call attention to the many times when, in fact, Members have cooperated among committees, between Chambers, and across party lines to make real progress to benefit the American people. The 109th Congress has had many such accomplishments that belie the stereotype of a rancorous debating society that is unable to enact and improve the security of our country. Let me focus on three major accomplishments by Congress in the area of homeland security. I note that these accomplishments should become law shortly as we complete work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The first accomplishment was reaching agreement on a broad array of reforms to improve the Department of Homeland Security, including urgently needed reform and reinforcement of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The recommendations for improvements the result of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security's 7-month investigation into the failed preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina. This investigation, which was completely bipartisan, included 23 hearings, testimony and interviews of some 400 people, and a review of more than 838,000 pages of documents. The committee's recommendations will make FEMA a distinct entity within DHS. Why does that matter? It matters because it gives FEMA the same kinds of protections enjoyed by the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It protects FEMA from arbitrary budget cuts or departmental reorganizations that are implemented without congressional review. FEMA's Administrator, under the reforms included in the appropriations bill, will become the President's principal adviser for all-hazards emergency management. Another important reform is that the legislation reunites preparedness and response and makes FEMA responsible and empowered for all phases of emergency management--preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery. A very important reform will be the creation of response strike teams to ensure a more effective response to disasters. What we will do is create in the 10 regions of the United States multi-agency task forces comprising representatives from every Federal agency that is involved in responding to or preparing for disaster. They will train and exercise with their State and local counterparts, with NGOs, such as the Red Cross, and with the key for-profit businesses, such as utility companies. That will ensure that they won't need to be exchanging business cards in the midst of the next disaster. I was struck during our investigation of Hurricane Katrina that so many people from FEMA Region I--the region the Presiding Officer and I are from, New England--were sent down to Louisiana to help with the response to Hurricane Katrina. The problem, of course, is they didn't know the people, they didn't know the geography, they didn't know the culture, they didn't have knowledge of what assets could be mobilized in the response. These regional teams will ensure that does not happen again. We also addressed issues such as chronic staffing shortages at FEMA, the need for better pre-positioning of emergency supplies and tracking of shipments, better grant-making authority to improve coordination regionally and with local responders, and the need to provide survivable and interoperable communications. We also revised the Stafford Act to bring it up to date and make it more flexible and responsive. The second major homeland security accomplishment of this Congress is still a work in progress, but I am very optimistic that it will, in fact, become law, and that is the port-security bill which this Chamber recently passed unanimously. Senator Murray and I have led a bipartisan effort to enact this legislation. There have been many other Members on both sides of the aisle involved, including on my committee Senator Coleman and Senator Lieberman. With 361 ports in this country and some 11 million shipping containers arriving each year, we desperately need better assurances that our seaports and these containers are not going to be used to bring weapons, explosives, bio-terror compounds, or even a squad of terrorists into our country. The vulnerability of our seaports is perhaps best underscored by an incident that occurred in Seattle in April, when 22 Chinese nationals were successful in coming all the way from China to Seattle in a shipping container. If 22 illegal Chinese nationals can come to our country via a shipping container, it shows we still have a lot of work to do to ensure better security at our seaports. The legislation this Chamber passed is balanced legislation that strengthens our security while recognizing the importance of trade and not bringing the shipment of containers to a halt. The port-security package fills a dangerous gap in our defenses. I hope we will enact it before leaving here this week. The third area of accomplishment involves the security of chemical plants, plants that either use, store, or manufacture large quantities of hazardous chemicals. Last January, I held a hearing in which I asked several experts: What are your greatest concerns? What gaps do we have in our homeland security? The lack of regulation of our chemical plants came up time and again. Our existing protections are a patchwork of different authorities--State, Coast Guard, and voluntary industry standards. They are inadequate, given the threats we face. Now, this has been a very difficult debate, but I think it is so important to remember that right now, the Department of Homeland Security lacks the authority to set risk- and performance-based standards for security at our chemical facilities despite the fact that terrorism experts tell us al-Qaida is focused on chemical plants and chemical explosions. We have some 15,000 chemical facilities around the country, including more than 3,000 sites where a terrorist attack could cause considerable casualties among nearby populations. Language in the DHS appropriations bill would, for the first time, empower DHS to set performance-based security standards for high-risk chemical facilities. That is approximately 3,400 facilities across this country. Very importantly, this legislation will allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to shut down a noncompliant plant. I fought very hard for this authority to be included in the appropriations bill. It does no good to empower the Secretary to set these risk-based, performance- based standards but then provide the tools to enforce them. I recognize there are many chemical plants and chemical companies across this country which have voluntarily taken strong steps to improve their security in the wake of the attacks on our country on 9/ 11. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security has told us there are many plants which have not improved their security at all or which have taken insufficient measures. We can no longer rely on just voluntary compliance with industry standards. So this legislation is landmark legislation. It closes a dangerous gap in our homeland security, and it has been included in the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I would note that the language includes a three-year sunset. The reason for that is we will want to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, the effectiveness of the regulations, and also consider other measures that were not included in this bill. The committee I am privileged to chair unanimously reported chemical-security legislation that was more comprehensive than the measures included in the appropriations bill. This will give us a chance to evaluate the efforts that have been taken, that will be taken, and then to go back and look at some of the issues that were not included. I want to be very clear. This is a major step forward. It will help close a dangerous gap in our homeland security, and it is significant progress in eliminating or at least lessening a significant risk to our country. These are three significant steps forward: the reform of FEMA, the port security bill, and the new authority for DHS to set security measures for chemical facilities. Each of them was made possible because of bipartisan cooperation. At times in this Chamber, we berate ourselves for failing to achieve consensus on legislation that is so important to the American people, but we did it in these three cases-- or we are on the verge of doing it--and it is because we did have good cooperation and strong leadership. It was not easy. But the legislation we are passing will advance our ability to protect the American people. I compliment all of the Members of the Senate, our partners on the House side, as well as members of the administration who have stepped forward and worked so hard to make these reforms a reality. Our success in advancing these achievements in strengthening our homeland security should be a source of justifiable pride to the Members of this body.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would correct a unique health insurance problem for some American citizens whose work is devoted to maintaining the memory of President Franklin D. Roosevelt at his Campobello Island retreat near the Maine border. About 10 U.S. citizens from the State of Maine work in Canada under terms of a treaty that governs operation of the Roosevelt Campobello International Park. As you know, that beautiful island in the Province of New Brunswick was President Roosevelt's treasured retreat, and still draws thousands of visitors from around the world. The American employees of the Park are, unfortunately, faced with a difficult problem in obtaining affordable health-insurance coverage. The legislation I introduce today would solve their difficulty by making them eligible for coverage under the Federal Employees Health Insurance Benefits Program. In the spirit of bipartisan recognition that FDR was one of our greatest and most inspiring Presidents, I am delighted to be joined in this effort by Senator Harkin. His endorsement of this bill is especially notable because he serves on the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission, and is thus very familiar with the difficulty of my Maine constituents employed at the Park. The Roosevelt Campobello International Park was dedicated in 1964 as a unique memorial to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Park is governed by a treaty between the United States and Canada, and is funded by both governments. The Park employs approximately 10 full-time employees who are American citizens residing in Maine. Unfortunately, the treaty that governs the Park does not address the health insurance needs of individuals employed directly by Roosevelt Campobello International Park. As a result, the State Department issued an opinion in 1965 stating that those employed by the Park Commission, ``shall be subject to the relevant Canadian labor laws.'' Based on the State Department opinion, the Civil Service Commission, the predecessor of the Office of Personnel Management, has determined that the employees are not considered Federal employees eligible for FEHBP coverage. The employees currently receive health insurance coverage through a small group plan negotiated by the Roosevelt Park Commission. The premiums have risen so dramatically that they can no longer afford coverage. The full-time employees are unique in their situation and should be included under the FEHBP for health insurance purposes. This would be a matter of equal treatment as well as compassion for those workers and their families. Full-time employees of other parks that share a border with Canada, like Glacier National Park, while technically the shared responsibility of both the United States and Canada, are eligible for coverage under the FEHBP. In addition, the location of the Park makes it impractical for these employees to seek medical treatment in Canada even if the government allowed them to join the Canadian health system. The closest doctors and hospitals are in Maine, and the Park is only accessible from the United States. If the treaty were negotiated today, health insurance would certainly be a part of the negotiations. The situation facing this small group of Roosevelt Campobello Park employees is a consequence of negotiations conducted when health insurance was not a standard employee benefit as it is today. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so that U.S. citizens maintaining the Park honoring a great American President will be treated fairly.