Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century. I originally introduced this bill last May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468, had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small business, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, the 108th Congress expired before my bill passed the Senate. It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has roughly $70 billion to $80 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for workers' compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume. The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, and paper manufacturing. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ. First and foremost, my bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. This postal reform legislation grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as first-class mail, periodicals, and library mail. The bill also introduces new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act will greatly improve the financial transparency of the Postal Service. The USPS would be required to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations in order to ensure increased financial transparency. The legislation repeals a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account, which would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases. It also returns to the Department of the Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees--a responsibility that the Treasury Department bears for all executive branch departments and agencies. The bill also converts workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age, and puts into place a 3-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. These changes will save the Postal Service approximately $50 million in workers' compensation costs over a 10-year period. The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now. I therefore ask the Senior Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee whether I can count on his assistance and support to help pass this legislation this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement. I originally introduced the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act last May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468, had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, my efforts to have the bill considered before the full Senate were stalled. Since last Fall, Administration representatives have become actively engaged in postal reform efforts, and have given me their commitment to working with Congress to ensure passage of a reform bill this year. I have every expectation that this will be the year comprehensive postal reform legislation is signed into law. It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High- Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume. In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability. The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service. As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms. To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.'' The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ. One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for three straight years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs. The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses. As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today reflects what the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses. First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns 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 communication 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 rates charged by the Postal Service. The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission. It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to the Consumer Price Index. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45 day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required. The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands. The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required. To meet the Presidential Commission's call for increased financial transparency, the Collins-Carper bill will require the Postal Service to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations. The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, many of whom place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process. Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently. According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago. The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years. The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid. To address the President's Commission's recommendation for improved executive compensation, this bill will allow the Postal Service to raise their overall executive compensation level from Executive Level 1 to that of the Vice President. This would bring the Postal Service in line with authority granted to federal agencies. This new authority will be contingent upon the development of a meaningful performance appraisal system. Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. The workshare program was developed by the Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission to enable customers to pay lower rates when they perform mail preparation or transportation activities. The language in our bill supports the principle that workshare discounts should generally not exceed the costs that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the worksharing activity. However, the bill spells out certain circumstances under which workshare discounts in excess of avoided costs are warranted. Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds could mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford. The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation. The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who, together with Congressman John McHugh, also recently introduced a postal reform bill, H.R. 22. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement. I originally introduced the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act last May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468, had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, my efforts to have the bill considered before the full Senate were stalled. Since last Fall, Administration representatives have become actively engaged in postal reform efforts, and have given me their commitment to working with Congress to ensure passage of a reform bill this year. I have every expectation that this will be the year comprehensive postal reform legislation is signed into law. It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High- Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume. In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability. The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service. As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms. To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.'' The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ. One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for three straight years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs. The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses. As Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today reflects what the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses. First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns 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 communication 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 rates charged by the Postal Service. The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission. It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to the Consumer Price Index. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45 day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required. The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands. The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required. To meet the Presidential Commission's call for increased financial transparency, the Collins-Carper bill will require the Postal Service to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations. The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, many of whom place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process. Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently. According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago. The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years. The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid. To address the President's Commission's recommendation for improved executive compensation, this bill will allow the Postal Service to raise their overall executive compensation level from Executive Level 1 to that of the Vice President. This would bring the Postal Service in line with authority granted to federal agencies. This new authority will be contingent upon the development of a meaningful performance appraisal system. Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. The workshare program was developed by the Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission to enable customers to pay lower rates when they perform mail preparation or transportation activities. The language in our bill supports the principle that workshare discounts should generally not exceed the costs that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the worksharing activity. However, the bill spells out certain circumstances under which workshare discounts in excess of avoided costs are warranted. Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds could mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford. The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation. The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who, together with Congressman John McHugh, also recently introduced a postal reform bill, H.R. 22. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my friend from New Hampshire and look forward to working with him on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century. I originally introduced this bill last May. In June of 2004, the bill was unanimously reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That bill, S. 2468, had the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small business, and other users of the mail. It also had the strong bi-partisan support of twenty-two members of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, the 108th Congress expired before my bill passed the Senate. It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has roughly $70 billion to $80 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $1.8 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, $7.6 billion for workers' compensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $47 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume. The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, and paper manufacturing. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ. First and foremost, my bill preserves the basic features of universal service--affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. This postal reform legislation grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as first-class mail, periodicals, and library mail. The bill also introduces new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act will greatly improve the financial transparency of the Postal Service. The USPS would be required to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission certain Securities and Exchange Commission financial disclosure forms, along with detailed annual reports on the status of the Postal Service's pension and postretirement health obligations in order to ensure increased financial transparency. The legislation repeals a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account, which would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but also to mitigate rate increases. It also returns to the Department of the Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees--a responsibility that the Treasury Department bears for all executive branch departments and agencies. The bill also converts workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age, and puts into place a 3-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. These changes will save the Postal Service approximately $50 million in workers' compensation costs over a 10-year period. The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now. I therefore ask the Senior Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee whether I can count on his assistance and support to help pass this legislation this Congress.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase education funding in the budget by $5.4 billion. This amendment will provide additional budget authority for the purpose of addressing many important education needs, including ensuring continued funding for TRIO, GEAR UP, and Perkins vocational education. In addition, this amendment will include funding to raise the maximum Pell grant award to $4,500 this year, which is one of my top legislative priorities for this year. Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, it is still the case that one of the most determinative factors of whether students will pursue higher education is their family income. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less that $25,000. To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has wisely invested in a need-based system of student financial aid designed to remove these economic barriers. Central to this effort for the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. The Pell grant program is the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education funded by the Federal Government. It provides grants to students based on their level of financial need to support their studies at the institutions they have chosen to attend. I have long supported efforts to raise the Pell grant maximum award. I am pleased by the efforts of the Budget Committee to provide a $100 increase in the Pell grant maximum award for this year. But I believe it is imperative that we succeed in providing a more substantial increase in the maximum grant this year. That is why, as my first legislation of this year, I introduced Senate Resolution 8, calling on the Senate to increase the Pell grant to $4,500 this year. I am very pleased to have Senators Feingold, Coleman, Kennedy, and Durbin joining me as cosponsors of this resolution. They are all leaders in the effort to expand access to higher education. The amendment before us builds on the efforts of my resolution, by following up to ensure sufficient budget authority to meet this goal. While I understand that we face many difficult decisions on the budget resolution before us, I believe that a $450 increase is an imminently reasonable and achievable goal for this year--especially in light of the fact that the Pell maximum grant has gone essentially unchanged for 4 years. After receiving a modest increase of $50 in 2002, the maximum award has been stuck at the $4,050 level for 2003, 2004, and 2005. In the meantime, the cost of attending college has continued to rise. The combination of these factors over the past 4 years has led to a significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant, and has forced students to rely increasingly on loans to finance their higher education. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers less than 40 percent of these costs, forcing students to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt. The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans have serious consequences for access to higher education for low- income students. The staggering amount of loans causes some students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. According to the College Board, low-income families are significantly less willing, by almost 50 percent, to finance a college education through borrowed money than their wealthier counterparts. That does not surprise me. Many working families in Maine are committed to living within their means. Understandably, they are extremely wary of the staggering amount of debt that is now required to finance a college education. I also know this to be true from my experiences as a college administrator at Husson College in Maine. At Husson, 85-90 percent of students currently receive some sort of Federal financial aid, and-- approximately 60 percent of students receive Pell grants. As Linda Conant, the financial aid director at Husson told me: You cannot imagine how difficult it is to sit with a family and to explain to them the amount of loans that are needed to finance a post-secondary degree. It scares them. That is why Pell grant aid is so important for low-income families. For these families, loans don't always work, but Pell does. We also know that having a well-educated workforce is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that over the next 10 years, there will be significant growth in jobs requiring at least some post- secondary education. So increasingly, higher education is going to be necessary to ensure employability and to prepare Americans to participate in tomorrow's economy. That is why Pell grants are so important. Pell grants make the difference in whether students have access to higher education, and a chance to participate fully in the American dream. Mr. President, Pell grants are targeted to the neediest of students-- recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. An additional $450 in Pell grant aid may very well be the deciding factor on whether these students can pursue their college dreams. The Pell grant program is the foundation of making good on the American promise of access to higher education. Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $4,500 for the upcoming award year. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Lieberman-Collins amendment No. 220 provides $855 million to restore cuts to vital first responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, and for port security grants. The amendment provides an additional $565 million for programs that support our first responders, including State homeland security formula grants, Urban Area Security Initiative grants, FIRE Act grants, SAFER grants, Emergency Management Planning Grants, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System. It would restore $140 million for community policing and local law enforcement efforts under the COPS and Byrne Grant programs. It would also provide $150 million for port security grants, ensuring at least the same amount of funding for the Nation's ports as last year. amendment no. 217

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Lieberman and I have offered would restore homeland security grant funding to last year's level for the first responder programs and for port security. It is a very modest amendment. Let us remember that when disaster strikes, our citizens do not dial the 202 Washington, DC, area code, they dial 911. It is our firefighters and police officers and our emergency medical personnel who are first on the scene. It is fully offset.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could just make a couple of comments in response to the Senator from New Hampshire. I will be very quick because I know the Senator from Louisiana has been waiting. It will be up to the Appropriations Committee to decide how to allocate the cuts that we are proposing in the allowances account. It would not necessarily cut across the board equally. In fact, almost certainly it would not, because the Appropriations Committee will set priorities. The second point that I want to make has to do with the number of border agents proposed in our amendment. I think that it demonstrates how modest the amendment is that the Senator from Connecticut and I have offered. After all, even though our legislation, the intelligence reform bill, authorized 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, because we recognized the constraints of the budget we have proposed only going halfway toward that goal, and that is why we chose to authorize just 1,000 additional border agents. It is in recognition of the budget constraints under which we are operating. So I think the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee actually helps make the point of how reasonable our approach is, that we chose to go for a more modest number than the previous amendment that was debated this evening. Furthermore, I point out that that amendment, to the best of my knowledge, was not accepted this evening. It is still a pending amendment. So this is about setting priorities, and surely we can provide funding just equal to last year's--we are not even proposing an inflation increase--to ensure that we continue to strengthen the preparedness of this Nation.

Ms. COLLINS. We are ready to rebut anything that might be said in opposition. But if there were no one speaking in opposition, I would be happy to conclude my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from Connecticut in offering an amendment to restore funding for the Department of Homeland Security's first responder programs to increase security at our country's borders and to better secure our Nation's seaports. The administration's budget, unfortunately, would impose severe reductions in grant funding for our first responders, those who are on the front lines in the war on terrorism. Our amendment restores funding by adding a total of $855 million for Homeland Security funding. This includes $565 million for State Homeland Security programs that support our first responders, $150 million for port security grants, and $140 million to hire 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents. Our amendment does not provide excessive funding. In fact, it is modest in scope. It would simply restore funding to last year's levels for Homeland Security grant programs such as State Homeland Security grants, the Fire Grant Program, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. The amendment will ensure at least the same amount of funding for our Nation's ports as last year, and it takes a modest first step toward increasing the number of border patrol agents as authorized by the Collins-Lieberman Intelligence Reform Act. I note that bill authorized the hiring of 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents. Our amendment authorizes the hiring of only 1,000 additional agents. I note that other Senators this evening, including the soon to be Presiding Officer, have also expressed the support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. This amendment is also offset by reductions in the allowances account, so it will not increase the deficit. It is a responsible amendment. As we set priorities through this budget resolution, we are faced with many worthy and competing needs and programs. But surely along with national defense improving the security of our homeland must be a priority, and that means providing adequate assistance to those who are on the front lines: Our firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, State and local law enforcement, and emergency managers. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge perhaps put it best when he said that Homeland Security starts with hometown security. Improving our preparedness is an investment that we must make to strengthen our ability to prevent, detect, and respond if required to terrorist attacks. After all, if the worst happens and we are subject to another attack from terrorists, our citizens are not going to dial the Washington, DC area code. They are going to pick up their phones and dial 9-1-1. We should always remember who is first on the scene when disaster strikes. We have an obligation to help our first responders be prepared--as well prepared as we can be--because that strengthens the preparedness of our Nation. Again, this is a modest amendment. There have been other proposals to increase Homeland Security grant funding by billions of dollars. I recognize we have to strike a balance, that we are operating in an environment of severe budget constraints. That is why Senator Lieberman and I have joined forces to propose what truly is a modest amendment, to simply restore funding to last year's levels. I think it is the least we can do. I do expect the Senator from Connecticut to be here shortly. I reserve the remainder of our time. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The United States is currently 57.8 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 2025, this number is expected to rise to 68 percent. At that time, more than 66 percent of our imports will come from OPEC nations, a prospect that causes great concern. In light of these statistics, what course should the United States take? Should we open ANWR, using up what well may be the last major U.S. reserve of oil or should we pursue alternative approaches that will encourage conservation and the development of alternative technologies? Instead of rushing to deplete our last major oil reserves, I believe we should develop energy efficiency and alternative technologies. Doing so will not only make more of an immediate difference than drilling in the Arctic, but also will ensure we leave our children with ample energy supplies and a broader array of energy options. President Teddy Roosevelt once stated: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.'' That is sound counsel. Americans have a right to develop our energy resources, but not to waste them. We could do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the efficiency of our automobiles, which would save one million barrels of oil a day. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today would be akin to wasting resources that should rightfully be there for future generations. We must embrace an ethic of stewardship of our most treasured national resources. According to one scientist who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee several years ago, the United States could cut reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This is a much greater benefit than drilling in ANWR would provide, and the benefits could start almost immediately. The United States has a tremendous record of increasing energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: Following the 1979 OPEC energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in technology, 2.2 percent is attainable. America needs to both increase fuel supplies and decrease demand, but in our effort to meet current energy needs we should not use up our last major reserves. If we increase energy efficiency and further develop alternative energy sources, we will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, save consumers money, increase our economic competitiveness and military effectiveness, and protect the environment. In his parting words from the Oval Office, President Dwight Eisenhower--who first set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- told the Nation: ``As we peer into society's future, we . . . must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.'' I call upon my colleagues to leave intact the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Let us instead develop a balanced energy policy that protects our environment, improves efficiency, and develops our renewable resources.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire. Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Despite their challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP. Almost one million retired government workers across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Millions more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $612 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month. The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that nine out of ten public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years. What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement. I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income. These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, Maine, wrote: ``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the current pool of educators near retirement in the next few years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard hours are not great selling points to young students when selecting a career. ``I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that because of my many years of maximum Social Security contributions, I would still have a livable retirement `wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an educator in your State.'' In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from 73- year old Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who told us about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $107 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in pension income. After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching at 75, just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us a cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill repeals two provisions of current law--the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO) that unfairly reduce earned Social Security benefits for many public employees when they retire. Individuals affected by both the GPO and the WEP are those who are eligible for Federal, State or local pensions from work that was not covered by Social Security, but who also qualify for Social Security benefits based on their own work in covered employment or that of their spouses. While the two provisions were intended to equalize Social Security's treatment of workers, we are concerned that they unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. These two provisions have enormous financial implications not just for Federal employees, but for our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees as well. Despite their challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs, these invaluable public servants often receive far lower salaries than private sector employees. It is therefore doubly unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. Yet, because of these two provisions, they are unable to collect all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. While the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in virtually every State, their impact is most acute in 15 States, including Maine. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP. Almost one million retired government workers across the country have already been adversely affected by these provisions. Millions more stand to be affected by them in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in Social Security benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. The Social Security windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who paid into Social Security and who receive a government pension from work not covered under Social Security, such pensions from the Maine State Retirement Fund. While private sector retirees receive Social Security checks based on 90 percent of their first $612 average monthly career earnings, government pensioners checks are based on 40 percent a harsh penalty of more than $300 per month. The government pension offset reduces an individual's survivor benefit under Social Security by two-thirds of the amount of his or her public pension. It is estimated that nine out of ten public employees affected by the GPO lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their deceased spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years. What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss--lower-income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, 73 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 of these individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Our teachers and other public employees face difficult enough challenges in their day-to-day work. Individuals who have devoted their lives to public service should not have the added burden of worrying about their retirement. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about this issue. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security in retirement. I hear a lot about this issue in my constituent mail, as well. Patricia Dupont, for example, of Orland, ME, wrote that, because she taught for 15 years under Social Security in New Hampshire, she is living on a retirement income of less than $13,000 after 45 years in education. Since she also lost survivors' benefits from her husband's Social Security, she calculates that a repeal of the WEP and the GPO would double her current retirement income. These provisions also penalize private sector employees who leave their jobs to become public school teachers. Ruth Wilson, a teacher from Otisfield, Maine, wrote: ``I entered the teaching profession two years ago, partly in response to the nationwide pleas for educators. As the current pool of educators near retirement in the next few years, our schools face a crisis. Low wages and long hard hours are not great selling points to young students when selecting a career. ``I love teaching and only regretted my decision when I found out about the penalties I will unfairly suffer. In my former life as a well-paid systems manager at State Street Bank in Boston, I contributed the maximum to Social Security each year. When I decided to become an educator, I figured that because of my many years of maximum Social Security contributions, I would still have a livable retirement `wage.' I was unaware that I would be penalized as an educator in your State.'' In September of 2003, I chaired a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from 73- year old Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who told us about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State Retirement System for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, she receives just $107 a month in Social Security benefits, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years. After paying for her health insurance, she receives less than $500 a month in pension income. After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, is still substitute teaching at 75, just to make ends meet. This simply is not fair. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation to repeal these two unfair provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us a cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act of 2005. This legislation will help to improve Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services across America. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feingold in this effort. Today, New York University's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response is releasing an important report, titled ``Findings from a National Roundtable to Improve Emergency Medical Service's Homeland Security Preparedness.'' This report details concerns and recommendations from more than 50 representatives of national EMS organizations and Federal agencies. Their top recommendation was to improve EMS homeland security preparedness through enactment of the very measure we are introducing today. I would note that a former member of my staff, Tim Raducha-Grace drafted this report. Tim continues to be a champion of first responders nationwide, and I congratulate him on this latest achievement. A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is essential to assure prompt, quality care to help individuals suffering from automobile crashes to traumatic medical emergencies, to terrorist events. The emergency medical services system serves as one of the most important parts of our health care safety net. Unfortunately, for the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce and uncoordinated. At least seven Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of emergency medical services (EMS), though most agencies focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't effectively coordinate with other agencies. In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General Accounting Office cited in its report Emergency Medical Services: Reported needs are Wide-Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical services systems. This legislation would seeks to improve one of the few existing efforts to coordinate Federal support for EMS providers. This legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Council on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), and would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff support. This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It would also help to assure Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize the best utilization of established funding. Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency medical services systems at the State and local level. According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of Maine, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and their Federal partners. Another GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and vehicles. Many of Maine's communities are at risk of seeing their first ambulance service closures in rural areas, such as in Rumford, ME, due to low reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low reimbursement areas that were at risk of shutting down, we might be able to maintain service in those areas. Improved coordination could also strengthen the integration between local providers and Federal agencies. Substantial numbers of our Reserve and National Guard units are being called up for duty, which has hurt search and air rescue capability across Maine. While LifeFlight of Maine is called upon to provide an eye in the sky there is little to no current capability for lifting someone out of the woods when there is no space to land. If the Navy pulls the last part time aircraft out of Brunswick Naval Air station, there wouldn't be any capability at all within a reasonable response timeframe. I am pleased to have the support of Maine's EMS Director, Jay Bradshaw, Lifeflight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of Maine EMS Directors, and others. We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by cosponsoring this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act of 2005. This legislation will help to improve Federal efforts to support community-based emergency medical services across America. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feingold in this effort. Today, New York University's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response is releasing an important report, titled ``Findings from a National Roundtable to Improve Emergency Medical Service's Homeland Security Preparedness.'' This report details concerns and recommendations from more than 50 representatives of national EMS organizations and Federal agencies. Their top recommendation was to improve EMS homeland security preparedness through enactment of the very measure we are introducing today. I would note that a former member of my staff, Tim Raducha-Grace drafted this report. Tim continues to be a champion of first responders nationwide, and I congratulate him on this latest achievement. A comprehensive, coordinated emergency medical services system is essential to assure prompt, quality care to help individuals suffering from automobile crashes to traumatic medical emergencies, to terrorist events. The emergency medical services system serves as one of the most important parts of our health care safety net. Unfortunately, for the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce and uncoordinated. At least seven Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of emergency medical services (EMS), though most agencies focus on only one segment of the EMS system and don't effectively coordinate with other agencies. In 2001, at the request of Senator Feingold and myself, the General Accounting Office cited in its report Emergency Medical Services: Reported needs are Wide-Ranging with a Growing Focus on Lack of Data the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local emergency medical services systems. This legislation would seeks to improve one of the few existing efforts to coordinate Federal support for EMS providers. This legislation would formally establish a Federal Interagency Council on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), and would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to provide organizational and staff support. This legislation would enhance coordination among the Federal agencies involved with the State, local, tribal and regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1 systems. It would also help to assure Federal agencies coordinate their EMS-related activities and maximize the best utilization of established funding. Local, State and Federal level emergency medical services systems are extremely diverse and involve numerous different agencies and organizations. To assure a viable, responsive emergency medical services system, Federal agencies need the input and advice of their non-Federal partners and from persons regulating or providing emergency medical services systems at the State and local level. According to Tom Judge, the Executive Director of Lifeflight of Maine, and Jay Bradshaw, the State of Maine's EMS Director, improved coordination can help strengthen support for a wide range of emergency medical services, from rural EMS providers, to communications between EMS systems, to improving coordination between local EMS providers and their Federal partners. Another GAO report made it clear that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services needs to better coordinate its reimbursement with the Department of Transportation's matching grants for equipment and vehicles. Many of Maine's communities are at risk of seeing their first ambulance service closures in rural areas, such as in Rumford, ME, due to low reimbursement rates. If DOT targeted assistance to the low reimbursement areas that were at risk of shutting down, we might be able to maintain service in those areas. Improved coordination could also strengthen the integration between local providers and Federal agencies. Substantial numbers of our Reserve and National Guard units are being called up for duty, which has hurt search and air rescue capability across Maine. While LifeFlight of Maine is called upon to provide an eye in the sky there is little to no current capability for lifting someone out of the woods when there is no space to land. If the Navy pulls the last part time aircraft out of Brunswick Naval Air station, there wouldn't be any capability at all within a reasonable response timeframe. I am pleased to have the support of Maine's EMS Director, Jay Bradshaw, Lifeflight of Maine, the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of Maine EMS Directors, and others. We must ensure that Federal agencies coordinate their efforts to support the dedicated men and women who provide EMS services across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts by cosponsoring this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senate co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am pleased to join Senators Bond and Mikulski in introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005. Alzheimer's is a devastating disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As someone whose family has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's, I know that there is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this dreadful disease. It is an agonizing experience to look into the eyes of a loved one only to receive a confused look in return. Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our Nation in many ways during his Presidency. But what many of us will remember most is the grace and dignity with which he and his wife Nancy faced the final battle against Alzheimer's--the one campaign they knew he wouldn't win. Ironically, it was President Reagan who first drew national attention to Alzheimer's disease when he launched a national campaign against the disease some 22 years ago. In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation, President Reagan said: ``The emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and their families.'' An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, more than double the number in 1980. Moreover, Alzheimer's disease costs the United States more than $100 billion a year, primarily in nursing home and other long-term care costs. This figure will only increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. As the baby boomers move into the years of highest risk for Alzheimer's disease, a strong and sustained research effort is our best tool to slow down the progression and prevent the onset of this terrible disease. Our investments in Alzheimer's disease research have begun to pay dividends. Effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease and a possible vaccine are tantalizingly within our grasp. Moreover, if scientists can find a way to delay the onset of this devastating disease for even five years, our Nation will save at least $50 billion in annual health and long-term care costs and an incalculable amount in human suffering. If we are to keep up the momentum we have established, we must increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. Millions of Americans, including the families of Alzheimer patients, are profoundly grateful for our historic accomplishment of doubling funding for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. We have made tremendous progress, but more must be done. The bill we are introducing today therefore doubles the authorization levels for Alzheimer's research at the NIH from the current funding level of $700 million to $1.4 million. In addition to increasing funding for research, our bill provides much needed support for Alzheimer's patients and their families by increasing funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program and by providing a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help families meet the costs of caring for a loved one with long-term care needs. The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005 will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all of those suffering from the disease today. It is now time for Congress to pick up the banner and pass this important legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair advantages to their producers. I hear from manufacturers in my State time and time again whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated communities. Consider this one example. The American residential wood furniture industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 34,700 jobs, or 28 percent of the workforce, have been lost in the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. One furniture manufacturer in Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, was forced to eliminate a quarter of its employees due to the unfair market conditions it faces. Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.2 billion in 2003. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage. This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act,'' a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked closely with me on this legislation. This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies, such as China. Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief. Under current Commerce Department practice, however, U.S. industries competing with these unfairly advantaged foreign producers can file an anti-subsidy petitions against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not against a non-market economy such as China. As a result, those countries, such as China, that subsidize their industries the most heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers are exempt from the reach of American anti-subsidy laws. It is time that this was changed. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated. Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit. Beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is not completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. And, of course, China has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure. The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage. Perhaps the most glaring subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies. Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or on the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated. Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No state understands this more than my home state of Maine. According to a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine lost more manufacturing jobs in the previous three years than any other state. This is why organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed my proposal. The Stopping Overseas Subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has a broad range of support across many industries and geographical areas. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Phil English of Pennsylvania and Artur Davis of Alabama. Last year, the Senate bill had eighteen cosponsors. I am proud that over twenty organizations and a number of private companies, representing a range of industries, have endorsed this bill. Some of these organizations include: The American Forest & Paper Association, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the Printing Industries of America, the Steel Manufacturers Association, and the Catfish Farmers of America. Of particular note, the National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed this bill and has listed it as one of its top trade agenda items in 2005. In addition, the United States Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the United States and China, has endorsed the goals of this bill. In its annual report to Congress in June 2004, the Commission stated, ``U.S. policy currently prevents application of countervailing duty laws to nonmarket economy countries such as China. This limits the ability of the United States to combat China's extensive use of subsidies that give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission recommends that Congress urge the Department of Commerce to make countervailing duty laws application to nonmarket economies. If Commerce does not do so, Congress should pass legislation to achieve the same effect.'' U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the playing field by allowing anti-subsidy petitions to be brought against non-market economies in addition to market economies. Countries such as China want to have all the benefits of engaging in international trading institutions and systems and continue to cheat on the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senate co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am pleased to join Senators Bond and Mikulski in introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005. Alzheimer's is a devastating disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As someone whose family has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's, I know that there is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this dreadful disease. It is an agonizing experience to look into the eyes of a loved one only to receive a confused look in return. Ronald Reagan had a profound effect on our Nation in many ways during his Presidency. But what many of us will remember most is the grace and dignity with which he and his wife Nancy faced the final battle against Alzheimer's--the one campaign they knew he wouldn't win. Ironically, it was President Reagan who first drew national attention to Alzheimer's disease when he launched a national campaign against the disease some 22 years ago. In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation, President Reagan said: ``The emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and their families.'' An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, more than double the number in 1980. Moreover, Alzheimer's disease costs the United States more than $100 billion a year, primarily in nursing home and other long-term care costs. This figure will only increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. As the baby boomers move into the years of highest risk for Alzheimer's disease, a strong and sustained research effort is our best tool to slow down the progression and prevent the onset of this terrible disease. Our investments in Alzheimer's disease research have begun to pay dividends. Effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease and a possible vaccine are tantalizingly within our grasp. Moreover, if scientists can find a way to delay the onset of this devastating disease for even five years, our Nation will save at least $50 billion in annual health and long-term care costs and an incalculable amount in human suffering. If we are to keep up the momentum we have established, we must increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. Millions of Americans, including the families of Alzheimer patients, are profoundly grateful for our historic accomplishment of doubling funding for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. We have made tremendous progress, but more must be done. The bill we are introducing today therefore doubles the authorization levels for Alzheimer's research at the NIH from the current funding level of $700 million to $1.4 million. In addition to increasing funding for research, our bill provides much needed support for Alzheimer's patients and their families by increasing funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program and by providing a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help families meet the costs of caring for a loved one with long-term care needs. The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2005 will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all of those suffering from the disease today. It is now time for Congress to pick up the banner and pass this important legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation's manufacturers and their employees can compete against the best in the world, but they cannot compete against nations that provide huge subsidies and other unfair advantages to their producers. I hear from manufacturers in my State time and time again whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of nations such as China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated communities. Consider this one example. The American residential wood furniture industry has experienced devastating losses due to surges of unfairly priced furniture imports from China. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, 34,700 jobs, or 28 percent of the workforce, have been lost in the U.S. furniture industry since 2000. One furniture manufacturer in Maine, Moosehead Manufacturing, was forced to eliminate a quarter of its employees due to the unfair market conditions it faces. Unfairly priced imports from China are a leading cause in these job losses. China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the U.S., which amounted to just $169 million in 1999, reached an estimated $1.2 billion in 2003. By subsidizing investments in furniture manufacturing facilities, China is exploiting the U.S. market to the benefit of its producers and putting our employees at an unfair advantage. This is why I am introducing the ``Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act,'' a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, who has worked closely with me on this legislation. This bill revises current trade remedy laws to ensure that U.S. countervailing duty laws apply to imports from non-market economies, such as China. Our Nation's trade remedy laws are intended to give American industries and their employees relief from the effects of illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, some countries in the world choose to cheat instead of compete fairly. In these cases, U.S. industries can file petitions under U.S. trade remedy laws for relief. Under current Commerce Department practice, however, U.S. industries competing with these unfairly advantaged foreign producers can file an anti-subsidy petitions against any market economy--such as Canada or Chile--but not against a non-market economy such as China. As a result, those countries, such as China, that subsidize their industries the most heavily and cause the most injury to U.S. industries and workers are exempt from the reach of American anti-subsidy laws. It is time that this was changed. It is simply not fair to prevent U.S. industries from seeking redress from these unfair trade practices because our trade remedy laws are outdated. Over the past two decades, there have been significant economic changes in many of the countries classified as non-market economies. This is particularly true in China, one of our largest trading partners and the country with which the United States currently runs its largest trade deficit. Beginning in the early 1980's and continuing today, China has undertaken major economic reforms. Today, China's economy is not completely state-controlled. Government price controls on a wide range of products have been eliminated. Many enterprises and even entire industries have been allowed to operate and compete in an economic system that has elements of a free market. And, of course, China has taken steps toward fully integrating into the global trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and by working toward the establishment of a modern commercial, financial, legal, and regulatory infrastructure. The problem is not China's economic liberalization and modernization. The problem is this: now that China has the capacity to be a key international economic player, the country has repeatedly refused to comply with standard international trading rules and practices. And these violations include the use of subsidies and other economic incentives that are designed to give its producers an unfair competitive advantage. Perhaps the most glaring subsidy comes in the form of currency manipulation. By keeping the Chinese yuan pegged to the U.S. dollar at artificially low levels, the Chinese undervalue the prices of their exports. Not only does this practice provide their producers with a price advantage, but also it violates International Monetary Fund and WTO rules. The Chinese government also reimburses many enterprises for their operating losses and provides loans to uncreditworthy companies. Currently, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat these unfair practices. They instead must rely upon government-to-government negotiations or on the dispute settlement processes of international organizations such as the WTO. While these channels might eventually lead to relief, it usually takes years to see results--and by that time, that industry could already be decimated. Unfair market conditions cannot continue to cause our manufacturers to hemorrhage jobs. No state understands this more than my home state of Maine. According to a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers, on a percentage basis, Maine lost more manufacturing jobs in the previous three years than any other state. This is why organizations such as the Maine Forest Products Council and the Maine Wood Products Association have strongly endorsed my proposal. The Stopping Overseas Subsidies bill is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has a broad range of support across many industries and geographical areas. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Phil English of Pennsylvania and Artur Davis of Alabama. Last year, the Senate bill had eighteen cosponsors. I am proud that over twenty organizations and a number of private companies, representing a range of industries, have endorsed this bill. Some of these organizations include: The American Forest & Paper Association, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the Printing Industries of America, the Steel Manufacturers Association, and the Catfish Farmers of America. Of particular note, the National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed this bill and has listed it as one of its top trade agenda items in 2005. In addition, the United States Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan organization established by Congress in 2000 to provide recommendations to Congress on the relationship between the United States and China, has endorsed the goals of this bill. In its annual report to Congress in June 2004, the Commission stated, ``U.S. policy currently prevents application of countervailing duty laws to nonmarket economy countries such as China. This limits the ability of the United States to combat China's extensive use of subsidies that give Chinese companies an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission recommends that Congress urge the Department of Commerce to make countervailing duty laws application to nonmarket economies. If Commerce does not do so, Congress should pass legislation to achieve the same effect.'' U.S. industries don't want protection--they want fair competition. Illegal subsidies distort fair competition, regardless of the economic system in which they are used. Our legislation simply levels the playing field by allowing anti-subsidy petitions to be brought against non-market economies in addition to market economies. Countries such as China want to have all the benefits of engaging in international trading institutions and systems and continue to cheat on the system with no penalties. It is time these countries were held to the same standards as other countries around the world. I ask you to join me in supporting the SOS bill to ensure that all countries are held accountable for their trade practices.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding. Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am extremely concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities. The rule states that: ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries--a broken arm for instance--would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen. Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected. This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.'' Millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident. The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent last November. Unfortunately, however, the House did not have time to act before the end of the Congress. I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding. Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling, I am extremely concerned that it would allow insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from participation in these activities. The rule states that: ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion for injuries sustained while doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though treatment for those injuries--a broken arm for instance--would have been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen. Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected. This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging them higher premiums based on their health status and other related factors that could lead to higher health costs.'' Millions of Americans participate in these legal and common recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident. The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent last November. Unfortunately, however, the House did not have time to act before the end of the Congress. I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.