Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the multiyear surface transportation bill before the Senate. The current authorization is set to expire this Friday when the highway trust fund will be depleted to levels that can no longer fully reimburse States for construction that has already been completed. Unfortunately, it looks as though we are going to have yet another short-term extension, rather than immediately enacting a longer term bill, as the House of Representatives is preparing to send the Senate a 3-month extension. This is a critical time of year for many States, particularly for my home State of Maine, where peak construction work occurs during a very short construction season. It would be irresponsible for Congress not to pass a bipartisan bill this week and keep those projects moving forward. I hope this fall we will finally be able to come together with our colleagues in the House to send to the President a multiyear surface transportation bill. The State of Maine currently receives $170 million of Federal highway funds annually, and the Maine Department of Transportation needs and obligates every single dollar. Under the multiyear bill before the Senate, Maine would do even better and would receive nearly $190 million the first year, increasing to nearly $215 million. The legislation before us also prioritizes bridge reconstruction and safety. This funding is critical, as 364 of Maine's bridges have been rated as structurally deficient. The commissioner of Maine's Department of Transportation tells me that if the highway trust fund is not fixed by July 31, the department will have to stop construction projects midstream within weeks. This would be devastating for the State's economy, for the people employed in these well-paying construction jobs, and for the transportation infrastructure in desperate need of repair and rehabilitation. The lack of consistent multiyear funding for the highway trust fund makes it so difficult for States to plan, causes construction companies to delay hiring workers, and costs the government more in the long run due to the uncertainty of funding. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the States of Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming are among those that have already postponed bidding on major transportation projects due to the uncertainty of Federal funding. While I feel I have no choice but to support a short-term patch to prevent the highway trust fund from expiring later this week, this short-term approach is not the answer. It needs to stop being the norm. It epitomizes Congress's failure to govern sensibly--to govern in a cost-effective way, to govern in a way that allows for the creation of good jobs in this country, and the renovation, repair, and rehabilitation of our vital transportation system. We in the Senate have the opportunity to pass a multiyear surface transportation bill that reauthorizes our highways, transit, rail, and safety programs, while keeping the highway trust fund solvent for the next 3 years. This legislation gives State departments of transportation the certainty they need to continue planning, investing, and constructing thousands of highway and infrastructure projects that the entire Nation relies upon. These investments create jobs, boost our Nation's economy, and keep us competitive in the global marketplace. The legislation maintains the Federal-aid highway formula program structure. This funding is not only crucial for building new highways and bridges but also to maintain and repair our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, including, as I mentioned, the thousands of deficient bridges across the Nation. With the consideration of this important bill, we are one step further to responsible investments, steady investments in infrastructure that millions of Americans count on every day. That is why I am so disappointed that instead we will do yet another short-term patch. We need to get away from that method of funding the highway trust fund. I also wish to highlight today the importance of the national infrastructure investment grants, otherwise known as the TIGER program. While this program was not included in the underlying bill, Senators Murray, Reed, and I have filed an amendment, along with Senators Cochran, Shelby, and others, that would authorize this highly successful TIGER grant program. This program has been such an effective initiative. It has helped to advance critical transportation infrastructure projects across our great country. It is one of the most flexible transportation programs in which State and local authorities can apply for funding. Every Senator here has seen firsthand how TIGER projects create good jobs and support economic growth in our home States. The program has supported highway, bridge, port, rail, and transit projects from this highly competitive program. In fact, let me give my colleagues some idea of the demand for the TIGER grants. To date, the TIGER program has received a total of $4.6 billion through appropriations from fiscal year 2009 through 2015, awarding 342 projects in all 50 States. Here is how many applications were submitted. Remember that 342 projects were actually funded. There were 6,700 applications that were received by the Department, totaling nearly $134 billion in funding requests. So my colleagues can see that the pent-up demand is just enormous. This demonstrates how oversubscribed the TIGER program is and how much it is needed by our State and local governments. I have received numerous letters of support for our amendment, some of which include Transportation for America and more than 150 elected officials, State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and chambers of commerce. You name it; they have endorsed our amendment to authorize this important program. This is just one of the many ways my colleagues and I would like to work to improve this bipartisan bill. Our TIGER grant amendment is widely supported on both sides of the aisle, and I believe it would pass were we able to get a vote. It has been a privilege to work very closely with my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Reed, both of whom I have worked with on the transportation-HUD subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, as well as Republicans such as Senator Cochran and Senator Shelby at the full committee level on this program. But, most of all, it is important that we act and act quickly to pass a multiyear surface transportation bill that will create jobs and on which our country can depend. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2015. I am very pleased that Senator Warner, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte, and Senator McCaskill are joining me in this bipartisan effort to strengthen cyber security in Federal agencies. I very much appreciate their input into this bill and their support. The cyber attack that stole sensitive personal data from millions of current, former, and retired Federal employees from the poorly secured databases at the Office of Personnel Management underscores the extraordinary vulnerability of our Federal computer networks, but for the more than 21 million Americans affected and indeed for our country, the threat from this theft continues. Whether it is the risk to the individual of identity theft or the impact on our Nation of the compromise of the identity of those dealing with classified information or the potential for espionage or blackmail, the threat remains extremely serious. Worst of all, better security of computer networks at OPM might well have prevented this terrible breach. The negligence of OPM officials who ignored repeated warnings over years from the inspector general that its networks were vulnerable is inexcusable. As the FBI Director testified before the Intelligence Committee during an open session earlier this month, this breach is a huge deal and represents a treasure trove of information for potential adversaries. But this cyber attack also points to a broader problem, and that is the glaring gap in the process for protecting sensitive information in Federal civilian agencies. Thus, we join together today to introduce this bipartisan bill. Our bill would strengthen the security of the networks of Federal civilian agencies by taking five important steps: First, our bill would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to operate intrusion detection and prevention capabilities on all Federal agencies on the dot-gov domain without waiting for a request from every single agency. Today, if an agency is uncooperative with DHS or simply does not want to make cyber security a priority, there is little that can be done to strengthen that agency's vulnerable network. I have visited the center at DHS that monitors some of the civilian networks. You could see the attempted intrusions in real time. Yet, I was told by some of the officials there that when they call the chief information official of that agency, sometimes the answer is very lackadaisical, almost indifferent. That cannot be allowed to continue. Second, our bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct risk assessments of any network within the dot-gov domain. This provision would ensure that no Federal agency can be unaware if it is operating an insufficiently secured network and thus jeopardizing sensitive data. Third, our bill would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to operate defensive countermeasures on these networks once a cyber threat has been detected. Currently, DHS can deploy technical assistance to agencies to diagnose and mitigate cyber threats only at that agency's discretion, and sometimes there are legal impediments for doing so. Fourth, our bill would strengthen and streamline the authorities that Congress gave to DHS last year to issue binding operational directives to Federal agencies, especially to respond to substantial cyber security threats or in an emergency where an intrusion is underway. Finally, while DHS oversees the protection of Federal civilian networks, the Office of Management and Budget has the ultimate responsibility to enforce governmentwide cyber security standards for civilian agencies. Our bill would require OMB to report to Congress annually on the extent to which OMB has exercised its existing authority to enforce governmentwide cyber security standards. Congress has already given the OMB the authority, for example, to recommend increases or decreases in an agency's funding or to exercise administrative control over information resources if such actions could increase the degree of compliance with cyber security standards. But I regret to say that the evidence that OMB has actually exercised this authority is pretty slim. The primary problem our bill would solve is that DHS has the mandate to protect the civilian Federal networks, but it has only limited authority to do so. Now, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, this approach stands in stark contrast to how the National Security Agency defends the dot-mil domain. By the way, our legislation does not affect the dot-mil domain--which covers the Department of Defense and our intelligence agencies--in any way. The Director of the NSA has the responsibility to protect the dot- mil domain, but he also has the authority from the Secretary of Defense to monitor all DOD networks and to deploy countermeasures when necessary. If the Director deems that an agency's network is insecure, he can shut it down. Contrast that to the inspector general at OPM, who last fall issued a report saying that OPM ought to shut down parts of its network because it was so insecure, and nothing happened. OPM didn't take any action and DHS lacked the authority to do so. That stands in sharp contrast to how we protect our defense and intelligence agencies' networks. As a result, our military and intelligence networks are better protected from foreign adversaries than our civilian agencies' networks. Although the Secretary of Homeland Security is tasked with a similar responsibility to protect Federal civilian networks, he has far less authority to accomplish that task. Yet--think about it--Federal civilian agencies such as OPM, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, Medicare, and the Patent Office are the repositories of vast quantities of sensitive, personal, and economic data belonging to the American people. We have to do a better job of protecting that data as well. When the Intelligence Committee on which I served asked the current Director of NSA how we might improve the protection of the dot-gov domain, he emphasized the importance of providing the authority commensurate with the responsibility for protecting civilian agency networks. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, similarly said that obtaining clear, congressional authorization for DHS to deploy protective capabilities to secure civilian agencies' networks is one of his priorities. I heard the same message from his predecessor, Secretary Janet Napolitano, when I was the ranking member of the homeland security committee in 2012. By the way, that year former Senator Joe Lieberman and I urged our colleagues to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which we drafted and which included, among other provisions, major reforms to improve the protection of Federal networks. We will never know if the OPM breach that compromised the security clearance background information of more than 21 million people could have been prevented if the Senate had passed our bill at that time. Of course, no bill, no law can protect against every cyber breach, but I believe we would have been far better positioned had we acted then. What we do know is that once a malware signature is identified, it was DHS's intrusion detection system--known as EINSTEIN--and other DHS- recommended tools that played key roles in identifying the massive compromise of the OPM data. Without these tools, OPM might still be blissfully unaware that it had been subjected to a major hack. The government's response to the breach demonstrates the urgent need for our legislation. The five agency networks that were monitored by EINSTEIN 3 were protected and capable of blocking the malware the moment the dangerous signatures used in the OPM breach were loaded into their systems. For every other civilian agency, however, that was not the case. DHS had to call the chief information officer responsible for every one of those networks that were not covered yet by the EINSTEIN 3 system. Then the bad indicators had to be passed on to each CIO, and each CIO had to search their agency networks for the harmful malware. Cyber threats move at the speed of light. No organization that takes cyber security seriously would rely upon a game of telephone tag to guard the security of its information. I also note that at the time the OPM breach actually occurred, the latest version of EINSTEIN had been deployed on less than 25 percent of the dot-gov network. So even if the government had detected the malware immediately, the government's ability to protect all of the networks would have taken that much longer because DHS's best intrusion system was not deployed widely enough. And, inexplicably, to this day, it is still not installed at OPM despite the information it stores as the chief employment office for millions of Federal employees and retirees. If we fail to give these much needed authorities to DHS, the unacceptable status quo will prevail. Under the status quo, each agency--however competently or incompetently--monitors its own networks and only asks DHS for assistance if it sees fit to do so. Let me describe just how poorly that approach has worked so far. We know that information security incidents in the Federal Government have increased more than twelvefold--from 5,500 in fiscal year 2006 to more than 67,000 in fiscal year 2014 according to the Government Accountability Office. That undoubtedly understates the real number since these are just the incidents of which we are aware. Nineteen of twenty-four major agencies have declared cyber security as a significant deficiency or material weakness for financial reporting purposes. At the same time, Federal agencies have failed to implement hundreds of recommendations from the GAO and inspectors general that could enhance the security of their networks. I could go on and on, citing the breach at IRS, at the Postal Service, at FAA, at NOAA, not to mention the OPM breach. It is unacceptable that we are putting important data belonging to the American people as well as our economic edge at risk. We simply have to take action now. It is incredible that OPM implausibly asserted earlier this month that ``there is no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from OPM's systems.'' That incredible statement, which implied that the perpetrators of this lengthy and extensive attack have no intention of ever using the stolen data, suggests that OPM still has yet to recognize the gravity of this cyber attack. But Congress also has the responsibility to make the job for those securing our Federal civilian networks easier to do in light of the extraordinary threat that foreign adversaries, international criminal gangs, and other hackers pose to government systems and the privacy and safety of our citizens. This bill is the first of many steps to strengthen our Nation's cyber security, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2015. I am very pleased that Senator Warner, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte, and Senator McCaskill are joining me in this bipartisan effort to strengthen cyber security in Federal agencies. I very much appreciate their input into this bill and their support. The cyber attack that stole sensitive personal data from millions of current, former, and retired Federal employees from the poorly secured databases at the Office of Personnel Management underscores the extraordinary vulnerability of our Federal computer networks, but for the more than 21 million Americans affected and indeed for our country, the threat from this theft continues. Whether it is the risk to the individual of identity theft or the impact on our Nation of the compromise of the identity of those dealing with classified information or the potential for espionage or blackmail, the threat remains extremely serious. Worst of all, better security of computer networks at OPM might well have prevented this terrible breach. The negligence of OPM officials who ignored repeated warnings over years from the inspector general that its networks were vulnerable is inexcusable. As the FBI Director testified before the Intelligence Committee during an open session earlier this month, this breach is a huge deal and represents a treasure trove of information for potential adversaries. But this cyber attack also points to a broader problem, and that is the glaring gap in the process for protecting sensitive information in Federal civilian agencies. Thus, we join together today to introduce this bipartisan bill. Our bill would strengthen the security of the networks of Federal civilian agencies by taking five important steps: First, our bill would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to operate intrusion detection and prevention capabilities on all Federal agencies on the dot-gov domain without waiting for a request from every single agency. Today, if an agency is uncooperative with DHS or simply does not want to make cyber security a priority, there is little that can be done to strengthen that agency's vulnerable network. I have visited the center at DHS that monitors some of the civilian networks. You could see the attempted intrusions in real time. Yet, I was told by some of the officials there that when they call the chief information official of that agency, sometimes the answer is very lackadaisical, almost indifferent. That cannot be allowed to continue. Second, our bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct risk assessments of any network within the dot-gov domain. This provision would ensure that no Federal agency can be unaware if it is operating an insufficiently secured network and thus jeopardizing sensitive data. Third, our bill would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to operate defensive countermeasures on these networks once a cyber threat has been detected. Currently, DHS can deploy technical assistance to agencies to diagnose and mitigate cyber threats only at that agency's discretion, and sometimes there are legal impediments for doing so. Fourth, our bill would strengthen and streamline the authorities that Congress gave to DHS last year to issue binding operational directives to Federal agencies, especially to respond to substantial cyber security threats or in an emergency where an intrusion is underway. Finally, while DHS oversees the protection of Federal civilian networks, the Office of Management and Budget has the ultimate responsibility to enforce governmentwide cyber security standards for civilian agencies. Our bill would require OMB to report to Congress annually on the extent to which OMB has exercised its existing authority to enforce governmentwide cyber security standards. Congress has already given the OMB the authority, for example, to recommend increases or decreases in an agency's funding or to exercise administrative control over information resources if such actions could increase the degree of compliance with cyber security standards. But I regret to say that the evidence that OMB has actually exercised this authority is pretty slim. The primary problem our bill would solve is that DHS has the mandate to protect the civilian Federal networks, but it has only limited authority to do so. Now, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, this approach stands in stark contrast to how the National Security Agency defends the dot-mil domain. By the way, our legislation does not affect the dot-mil domain--which covers the Department of Defense and our intelligence agencies--in any way. The Director of the NSA has the responsibility to protect the dot- mil domain, but he also has the authority from the Secretary of Defense to monitor all DOD networks and to deploy countermeasures when necessary. If the Director deems that an agency's network is insecure, he can shut it down. Contrast that to the inspector general at OPM, who last fall issued a report saying that OPM ought to shut down parts of its network because it was so insecure, and nothing happened. OPM didn't take any action and DHS lacked the authority to do so. That stands in sharp contrast to how we protect our defense and intelligence agencies' networks. As a result, our military and intelligence networks are better protected from foreign adversaries than our civilian agencies' networks. Although the Secretary of Homeland Security is tasked with a similar responsibility to protect Federal civilian networks, he has far less authority to accomplish that task. Yet--think about it--Federal civilian agencies such as OPM, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, Medicare, and the Patent Office are the repositories of vast quantities of sensitive, personal, and economic data belonging to the American people. We have to do a better job of protecting that data as well. When the Intelligence Committee on which I served asked the current Director of NSA how we might improve the protection of the dot-gov domain, he emphasized the importance of providing the authority commensurate with the responsibility for protecting civilian agency networks. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, similarly said that obtaining clear, congressional authorization for DHS to deploy protective capabilities to secure civilian agencies' networks is one of his priorities. I heard the same message from his predecessor, Secretary Janet Napolitano, when I was the ranking member of the homeland security committee in 2012. By the way, that year former Senator Joe Lieberman and I urged our colleagues to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which we drafted and which included, among other provisions, major reforms to improve the protection of Federal networks. We will never know if the OPM breach that compromised the security clearance background information of more than 21 million people could have been prevented if the Senate had passed our bill at that time. Of course, no bill, no law can protect against every cyber breach, but I believe we would have been far better positioned had we acted then. What we do know is that once a malware signature is identified, it was DHS's intrusion detection system--known as EINSTEIN--and other DHS- recommended tools that played key roles in identifying the massive compromise of the OPM data. Without these tools, OPM might still be blissfully unaware that it had been subjected to a major hack. The government's response to the breach demonstrates the urgent need for our legislation. The five agency networks that were monitored by EINSTEIN 3 were protected and capable of blocking the malware the moment the dangerous signatures used in the OPM breach were loaded into their systems. For every other civilian agency, however, that was not the case. DHS had to call the chief information officer responsible for every one of those networks that were not covered yet by the EINSTEIN 3 system. Then the bad indicators had to be passed on to each CIO, and each CIO had to search their agency networks for the harmful malware. Cyber threats move at the speed of light. No organization that takes cyber security seriously would rely upon a game of telephone tag to guard the security of its information. I also note that at the time the OPM breach actually occurred, the latest version of EINSTEIN had been deployed on less than 25 percent of the dot-gov network. So even if the government had detected the malware immediately, the government's ability to protect all of the networks would have taken that much longer because DHS's best intrusion system was not deployed widely enough. And, inexplicably, to this day, it is still not installed at OPM despite the information it stores as the chief employment office for millions of Federal employees and retirees. If we fail to give these much needed authorities to DHS, the unacceptable status quo will prevail. Under the status quo, each agency--however competently or incompetently--monitors its own networks and only asks DHS for assistance if it sees fit to do so. Let me describe just how poorly that approach has worked so far. We know that information security incidents in the Federal Government have increased more than twelvefold--from 5,500 in fiscal year 2006 to more than 67,000 in fiscal year 2014 according to the Government Accountability Office. That undoubtedly understates the real number since these are just the incidents of which we are aware. Nineteen of twenty-four major agencies have declared cyber security as a significant deficiency or material weakness for financial reporting purposes. At the same time, Federal agencies have failed to implement hundreds of recommendations from the GAO and inspectors general that could enhance the security of their networks. I could go on and on, citing the breach at IRS, at the Postal Service, at FAA, at NOAA, not to mention the OPM breach. It is unacceptable that we are putting important data belonging to the American people as well as our economic edge at risk. We simply have to take action now. It is incredible that OPM implausibly asserted earlier this month that ``there is no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from OPM's systems.'' That incredible statement, which implied that the perpetrators of this lengthy and extensive attack have no intention of ever using the stolen data, suggests that OPM still has yet to recognize the gravity of this cyber attack. But Congress also has the responsibility to make the job for those securing our Federal civilian networks easier to do in light of the extraordinary threat that foreign adversaries, international criminal gangs, and other hackers pose to government systems and the privacy and safety of our citizens. This bill is the first of many steps to strengthen our Nation's cyber security, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I begin my comments on the Older Americans Act, I do want to add to the accolades that have been given today to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on which I am pleased to serve. They have worked as a team, providing tremendous leadership that brought us to a tremendous accomplishment today, and that is the passage of the Every Child Achieves Act. It would not have happened without the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray, the ranking minority member. I thank them for their hard work in this regard.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging and as the cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, I also commend the chairman and the ranking member of the HELP Committee for their hard work over the past 2 years in developing a bipartisan consensus bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Older Americans Act. It is my hope that the Senate later today will unanimously pass this important legislation. The programs authorized by the Older Americans Act are tremendously important in the State of Maine and across the country. Maine is the oldest State by median age in the entire country. Probably, if I asked most of my colleagues, they would guess it was Florida, but in fact it is the State of Maine. Maine's network of five area agencies on aging provides invaluable supports and services to more than 100,000 seniors living in my State. In just the past few months, I have received almost 700 letters from seniors across Maine urging that we pass the reauthorization bill. I look forward to letting my constituents know that the Senate soon will do just that. While funding has been provided on a continuing basis through the appropriations process, the fact is that legislation reauthorizing the Older Americans Act is long overdue. The authorization expired in 2011. It is particularly significant that the Senate pass this legislation this month, for July marks the 50th anniversary of the Older Americans Act. This law funds critical services in communities across our Nation that help to keep our older adults healthy and independent. Its funding supports some of the most vital and successful Federal programs for our Nation's seniors. Nearly 12 million older Americans receive services through this law, such services as Meals on Wheels, senior centers, transportation, legal services, and caregiver support. Moreover, these programs are operated through a national network of area agencies on aging that stresses local decisionmaking regarding what services are most needed for older adults in a particular community. It is a flexible program that allows local needs to be met. Older Americans Act programs also help to relieve the financial pressure on the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, because they help seniors to stay healthy, independent, and living right where they want to be--in the comfort, security, and privacy of their own homes. AARP's surveys consistently reflect the fact that aging in place is the preferred option for seniors who want to continue to live independently and avoid expensive nursing home and other institutionalized care as long as possible. This bill also includes important provisions to strengthen the Long- Term Care Ombudsman Program and to help protect our vulnerable seniors from financial exploitation and abuse. Financial exploitation of our seniors is a growing epidemic that cost them an estimated $2.9 billion in 2010. It is so disturbing that in 90 percent of these cases, the financial exploitation abuse is perpetrated by a family member, a trusted individual, a caregiver--someone whom the senior knows well. The Aging Committee has held hearings to highlight this issue, and the bill that will be coming before the Senate later today will take steps to strengthen the Federal response to this growing problem. Of course passage by the Senate, while an essential step, is not the final step in reauthorizing this significant law. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and our colleagues here and in the House to make the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act a reality this year. And how wonderful would it be if it could be a reality this month, which marks the 50th anniversary of this significant law. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 12, S. 192; that the bill be read for the third time; and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate has now passed the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act by voice vote. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging and as a Senator who represents a State with the highest median age, I am well aware of how important the programs authorized by this law are to our Nation's seniors. They include, for example, Meals on Wheels, which is a wonderful program that allows so many of our seniors to stay in their own homes and yet have their nutritional needs met. I also know how much the seniors in my State look forward to the visits from those who are delivering Meals on Wheels. It is a way that their health and well- being can be checked on. In some cases, it may be the only social interaction they have on a given day. In my State, the five area agencies on aging are very active in delivering the services needed for the seniors in that particular community or region in my State, particularly in rural Maine, where there may be an absence of services, such as caregiving services. The area agency on aging plays an absolutely critical role. In some other areas of the State, under the Older Americans Act programs, transportation services are provided to our seniors, legal services, whatever is needed. One of the provisions of this bill in which I have a particular interest is the strengthening of the role of the ombudsman for long- term care. That is important for the quality of care our seniors are receiving in nursing homes and other institutionalized settings. But the great thing about the Older Americans Act is that it helps many of our seniors avoid nursing homes and instead remain in the comfort, security, and privacy of their own homes--just where they want to be. This bill also takes steps to help safeguard older Americans from abuse and financial exploitation. I know from the hearings we have held before the Aging Committee that this is a growing problem. In fact, in the year 2011, it is estimated that older Americans lost some $2.9 billion due to schemes that were foisted on them. That probably is a greatly understated number because, sadly, 90 percent of this exploitation comes from people the senior knows well--either a relative, a trusted adviser, or a caregiver. Oftentimes, seniors are very hesitant to report these crimes because they don't want to get a loved one in trouble or they are simply too embarrassed to go to the police. We have held hearings on how technology has made the Do Not Call list virtually useless these days because unfortunately technology allows people from call centers in India, for example, to call into this country pretending to be a member of the Internal Revenue Service or the local police department. Well, when a senior sees on the caller ID that the Department of Treasury from Washington, DC, is calling, they are going to pick up the phone, and thus the exploitation begins. We are making a real effort on the Aging Committee to educate seniors about these con artists and the techniques they use to try to rip off people of all ages but with a particular focus on our senior citizens. So I am pleased that the Older Americans Act is focused on financial exploitation and trying to stop that kind of abuse. In short, the reauthorization of these important programs under the Older Americans Act is long overdue. While we have continued to fund them, the reauthorization expired years ago, and I am very pleased that the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which the Presiding Officer is such a valuable member, have worked together to produce the bipartisan bill we just passed. This shows what the Senate can do when we work together to meet the needs of our citizens. It is an honor to be on the floor to manage this bill. I hope, since it was 50 years ago this month when the Older Americans Act first passed, that we can move rapidly to see it approved by the House of Representatives as well and signed into law by the President. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves the floor, let me thank him for his kind comments. I have enjoyed working with him on issues such as hospice care and advanced planning. I know these issues are very important to him, as they are to me. I am happy we are able to collaborate on a GAO request and also on a hearing later this year. So I thank him for his efforts in resolving this issue so that the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act could go forward.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Bank Sensible Regulation Act of 2015, a bill which would allow financial regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and unduly burdensome requirements, if doing so is in the public interest. My bill would provide this authority to the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve, and would apply to financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets. The aim of my legislation is to allow the financial regulators to exempt community banks from highly complex regulations designed to protect our financial system from systemic risks that would arise from the failure of larger banks. All banks, large and small, should be well-capitalized and properly regulated, but that does not mean that our financial regulators must impose a ``one size fits all'' regulatory regime across the board without regard to the risks posed to the financial system by banks with fundamentally different business models and of vastly different sizes. Some regulations that are appropriate or essential for larger banks may make no sense when applied to community banks. For example, current law requires community banks to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the Volcker Rule--which restricts proprietary trading and hedge fund investments by banks--even though community banks rarely engage in such trading. Even so, community banks must shoulder the burden of complying with this complex regulation. My bill would allow the regulators to exempt community banks from the Volcker Rule. As the GAO has noted, smaller banks are ``disproportionately affected by increased regulation, because they are less able to absorb additional costs.'' These costs are significant. According to industry representatives, the cost of complying with regulations absorbs 12 percent of total bank operating expenses, and is two-and-a- half times greater for small banks than for large banks. The cost of regulation puts community banks at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis larger banks. Over the past 2 decades, the share of the U.S. banking industry represented by community banks has declined from 40 percent to just 18 percent. Over the same period, the share of the market represented by the five largest banks has grown from roughly 18 percent to 46 percent. I am concerned that unnecessary regulation will accelerate these trends, and ironically, contribute to the further consolidation of the banking industry into a handful of ``too big to fail'' banks. Community banks play an essential role in meeting the credit needs of their customers, particularly small businesses, homeowners, and farmers. Although community banks represent just 18 percent of total banking assets, they are responsible for half of our nation's small business loans. With small business formation at generational lows, it is essential that we preserve and protect their access to credit, as they are the major driver of job creation in our country. In addition, community banks provide \3/4\ of our Nation's agricultural loans, a line of finance that requires highly specialized knowledge of farming and a long-term perspective suited to agricultural cycles. Regulators should be able to tailor their regulations to take the distinctive nature of community banks into account. My bill would allow regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and burdensome regulations where it is in the public interest to do so. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Bank Sensible Regulation Act of 2015, a bill which would allow financial regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and unduly burdensome requirements, if doing so is in the public interest. My bill would provide this authority to the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve, and would apply to financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets. The aim of my legislation is to allow the financial regulators to exempt community banks from highly complex regulations designed to protect our financial system from systemic risks that would arise from the failure of larger banks. All banks, large and small, should be well-capitalized and properly regulated, but that does not mean that our financial regulators must impose a ``one size fits all'' regulatory regime across the board without regard to the risks posed to the financial system by banks with fundamentally different business models and of vastly different sizes. Some regulations that are appropriate or essential for larger banks may make no sense when applied to community banks. For example, current law requires community banks to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the Volcker Rule--which restricts proprietary trading and hedge fund investments by banks--even though community banks rarely engage in such trading. Even so, community banks must shoulder the burden of complying with this complex regulation. My bill would allow the regulators to exempt community banks from the Volcker Rule. As the GAO has noted, smaller banks are ``disproportionately affected by increased regulation, because they are less able to absorb additional costs.'' These costs are significant. According to industry representatives, the cost of complying with regulations absorbs 12 percent of total bank operating expenses, and is two-and-a- half times greater for small banks than for large banks. The cost of regulation puts community banks at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis larger banks. Over the past 2 decades, the share of the U.S. banking industry represented by community banks has declined from 40 percent to just 18 percent. Over the same period, the share of the market represented by the five largest banks has grown from roughly 18 percent to 46 percent. I am concerned that unnecessary regulation will accelerate these trends, and ironically, contribute to the further consolidation of the banking industry into a handful of ``too big to fail'' banks. Community banks play an essential role in meeting the credit needs of their customers, particularly small businesses, homeowners, and farmers. Although community banks represent just 18 percent of total banking assets, they are responsible for half of our nation's small business loans. With small business formation at generational lows, it is essential that we preserve and protect their access to credit, as they are the major driver of job creation in our country. In addition, community banks provide \3/4\ of our Nation's agricultural loans, a line of finance that requires highly specialized knowledge of farming and a long-term perspective suited to agricultural cycles. Regulators should be able to tailor their regulations to take the distinctive nature of community banks into account. My bill would allow regulators to exempt community banks from unnecessary and burdensome regulations where it is in the public interest to do so. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategy to recognize and support the more than 40 million family caregivers in the United States. The U.S. population is aging. According to Census Bureau projections, 21 percent of our population will be 65 and older by 2040, up from just under 14 percent in 2012. Every day, 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old, and as many as 90 percent of them have one or more chronic health conditions. Americans 85 and older--our oldest old--are the fastest growing segment of our population. This is the population that is most at risk of multiple and interacting health problems that can lead to disability and the need for round-the-clock care. At the very time that our population is aging and the need for care and support is increasing, declining birthrates mean that the population of professional and informal caregivers is shrinking. Today, there are seven potential caregivers for each person over 80 and at the highest risk of requiring long-term care. By 2030, there will be four, and by 2050, the number drops to fewer than three. As a consequence, in the future, more people will have to rely on fewer caregivers. Families will likely continue to be the most important source of support for people with long-term care needs. We must do more to support the 43 million family caregivers in the United States who, in 2009, provided an estimated $450 billion in uncompensated long-term care. This is an increase from $375 billion just 2 years earlier, and more than double the value of all paid long-term care. Family caregivers provide tremendous value, but they also face many challenges. While the typical family caregiver is a 49-year old woman who takes care of an older relative, 34 percent of family caregivers are aged 65 or older. Nearly one in ten is 75 or older. Many of these caregivers are putting their own health at risk, since caregivers experience high levels of stress and have a greater incidence of chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer and depression. Most family caregivers are employed and struggle to balance their work and caregiving responsibilities. Nearly seven in ten caregivers report making sacrifices in the workplace because of their caregiving responsibilities. They face financial hardships if they must reduce their hours, change jobs, or leave the workforce entirely because of caregiving demands. Family caregivers age 50 and older who leave the workforce to care for a parent lose, on average, nearly $304,000 in wages and benefits over their lifetime. I am therefore introducing legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategy to recognize and support family caregivers. Titled the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage, or RAISE Family Caregivers Act, the legislation is based on a recommendation of the bipartisan Commission on Long Term Care. It is modeled after a law that I co-authored in 2010 with then-Senator Evan Bayh that created a coordinated strategic national plan to combat Alzheimer's disease. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a National Family Caregiving Project to develop and sustain a national strategy to support family caregivers. The bill would create a Family Caregiving Advisory Council composed of relevant Federal agencies and non-federal members. It would include representatives of family caregivers, older adults with long-term care needs, individuals with disabilities, employers, health and social service providers, advocates for family caregivers, state and local officials, and others with expertise in family caregiving. The Advisory Council would be charged with making recommendations to the Secretary. The strategy and plan would be updated annually to reflect new developments. The plan would include an initial inventory and assessment of federally-funded caregiver efforts. It would then identify specific actions that government, communities, employers, providers, and others can take to support family caregivers. The Project would be funded from existing funding appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services. No new funding is authorized. Like the National Alzheimer's Project Act, it would sunset in fifteen years. Family caregivers are an invaluable resource to our aging society. Chances are that, sooner or later, we will all either be family caregivers or someone who needs one. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act will launch a coordinated, national strategic plan that will help us to leverage our resources, promote innovation and promising practices, and provide our nation's family caregivers with much-needed recognition and support. Our bipartisan legislation has been endorsed by AARP. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategy to recognize and support the more than 40 million family caregivers in the United States. The U.S. population is aging. According to Census Bureau projections, 21 percent of our population will be 65 and older by 2040, up from just under 14 percent in 2012. Every day, 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old, and as many as 90 percent of them have one or more chronic health conditions. Americans 85 and older--our oldest old--are the fastest growing segment of our population. This is the population that is most at risk of multiple and interacting health problems that can lead to disability and the need for round-the-clock care. At the very time that our population is aging and the need for care and support is increasing, declining birthrates mean that the population of professional and informal caregivers is shrinking. Today, there are seven potential caregivers for each person over 80 and at the highest risk of requiring long-term care. By 2030, there will be four, and by 2050, the number drops to fewer than three. As a consequence, in the future, more people will have to rely on fewer caregivers. Families will likely continue to be the most important source of support for people with long-term care needs. We must do more to support the 43 million family caregivers in the United States who, in 2009, provided an estimated $450 billion in uncompensated long-term care. This is an increase from $375 billion just 2 years earlier, and more than double the value of all paid long-term care. Family caregivers provide tremendous value, but they also face many challenges. While the typical family caregiver is a 49-year old woman who takes care of an older relative, 34 percent of family caregivers are aged 65 or older. Nearly one in ten is 75 or older. Many of these caregivers are putting their own health at risk, since caregivers experience high levels of stress and have a greater incidence of chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer and depression. Most family caregivers are employed and struggle to balance their work and caregiving responsibilities. Nearly seven in ten caregivers report making sacrifices in the workplace because of their caregiving responsibilities. They face financial hardships if they must reduce their hours, change jobs, or leave the workforce entirely because of caregiving demands. Family caregivers age 50 and older who leave the workforce to care for a parent lose, on average, nearly $304,000 in wages and benefits over their lifetime. I am therefore introducing legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategy to recognize and support family caregivers. Titled the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage, or RAISE Family Caregivers Act, the legislation is based on a recommendation of the bipartisan Commission on Long Term Care. It is modeled after a law that I co-authored in 2010 with then-Senator Evan Bayh that created a coordinated strategic national plan to combat Alzheimer's disease. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a National Family Caregiving Project to develop and sustain a national strategy to support family caregivers. The bill would create a Family Caregiving Advisory Council composed of relevant Federal agencies and non-federal members. It would include representatives of family caregivers, older adults with long-term care needs, individuals with disabilities, employers, health and social service providers, advocates for family caregivers, state and local officials, and others with expertise in family caregiving. The Advisory Council would be charged with making recommendations to the Secretary. The strategy and plan would be updated annually to reflect new developments. The plan would include an initial inventory and assessment of federally-funded caregiver efforts. It would then identify specific actions that government, communities, employers, providers, and others can take to support family caregivers. The Project would be funded from existing funding appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services. No new funding is authorized. Like the National Alzheimer's Project Act, it would sunset in fifteen years. Family caregivers are an invaluable resource to our aging society. Chances are that, sooner or later, we will all either be family caregivers or someone who needs one. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act will launch a coordinated, national strategic plan that will help us to leverage our resources, promote innovation and promising practices, and provide our nation's family caregivers with much-needed recognition and support. Our bipartisan legislation has been endorsed by AARP. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the bipartisan Every Child Achieves Act. This bill is landmark legislation that would reform and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind. This bill would improve our schools and strengthen the traditional roles played by our local communities, our educators, and our States. I am proud to have joined every member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in voting to report this bill and I applaud the chairman, Senator Alexander, and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their leadership. Congressional action to remedy the serious problems with the law No Child Left Behind, while preserving its valuable parts, is long overdue. NCLB was a well-intentioned law, and its focus on the education of every child, greater transparency in school performance, and more accountability for results were welcome reforms. But some of its provisions were simply not achievable and thus discouraging to teachers, to parents, and to students alike. The current system of unattainable standards and a patchwork of State waivers has led to confusion about Federal requirements. High-stakes testing and unrealistic 100-percent proficiency goals do not raise aspirations; they instead dispirit those who are committed to a high- quality education for our students. Responding to those concerns in 2004, along with then-Senator Olympia Snowe, I established the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the issues facing Maine and to provide recommendations for changes to No Child Left Behind. Our task force brought together individuals with a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective on the law and on educational policy in general. The task force included teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members, parents, and State officials. It was cochaired by Leo Martin, a former commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, and Anne Pooler, a former professor and then- associate dean at the College of Education at the University of Maine. The task force completed its work in 2005. Well, our Maine NCLB task force proved to be prescient in identifying the problems with implementing No Child Left Behind, and 10 years later its report is as relevant as ever. Chief among the task force's final recommendations was the need for greater flexibility for the State department of education and for local school boards. The members pointed out that the principles of improved student performance and closing achievement gaps were completely compatible with according States more flexibility to design different accountability systems. Reflecting that recommendation, the bill before us, the Every Child Achieves Act, would remove the high-stakes accountability system that has been proven unworkable under No Child Left Behind. Our bill would give States much-needed flexibility over how to improve the accountability of schools for student achievement. Recognizing also the critical importance of family engagement in education, the bill supports school districts in conducting parent outreach and participation activities. The Every Child Achieves Act would also eliminate the burdensome definition of a ``highly qualified teacher'' which has proven to be unworkable in Maine's small, rural schools. In such schools, the reality is that teachers must often teach multiple subjects and are reassigned to different content areas because of low enrollment. For example, on Maine's North Haven Island, there is one school that serves all students from kindergarten through the 12th grade. With fewer than 70 students, North Haven Community School is one of the smallest K-through-12 schools in my State. It is not surprising that the educators at the North Haven Community School teach multiple subject areas across the different grades because of the school's size. Speaking of smaller schools, I am particularly pleased that the Every Child Achieves Act would extend the Rural Education Achievement Program, known as REAP, which I coauthored with former Senator Kent Conrad in 2002. Students in rural America should have the same access to Federal grant dollars as those who attend schools in large urban and suburban communities. Most Federal competitive grant programs, however, favor larger school districts because those are the districts that have the ability to hire grant writers to apply for these grants. If you are in a school district such as North Haven, which only has 70 students for all the grades, you don't have the luxury of extra funds to hire grant writers to apply for these competitive grant programs. What REAP does is provides financial assistance to small and high- poverty rural districts to help them address their unique local needs and also to meet Federal requirements. This program has helped to support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, professional development for educators, as well as an array of other programs that benefit students and teachers in rural districts. Since the law was enacted, at least 120 Maine school districts have collectively received more than $42 million from the Rural Education Achievement Program. That is money which has made a real difference to these small, rural, high-poverty districts, and it is Federal funds that they would never have been able to successfully compete for when they were applying against large, urban school districts. Maine's educators are working hard to develop high-quality assessments that better track student performance and growth. I am pleased that the Every Child Achieves Act includes a pilot program to support States that are designing alternative assessment systems based on student proficiency, not just traditional standardized tests. Such systems often give teachers, parents, and students a fuller understanding of each student's abilities and better prepare them for college or the career path they choose. The Federal Government should cooperate with States and school districts that are designing new assessment systems, and this pilot program is an important step in the right direction. During the committee's consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment with Senator Sanders to allow more States to participate in the innovative assessment program and to give participating school districts more time to scale up their systems statewide. Our amendment passed unanimously in committee, and I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for continuing to work with me to refine and improve this pilot program. The bottom line is that Washington should not be imposing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to assessment. What works in Chicago may not be the answer for Turner, ME, which was named a Blue Ribbon School last year. Assessing the progress of our students is critical, but there are many effective ways to determine students' level of learning. Fifty years ago and alongside significant civil rights legislation, Congress first passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to improve access to education, particularly for the students from low- income families. Providing a good education for every child must remain a national priority so that each child reaches his or her full potential, has a wide range of opportunities, and can compete in an increasingly global economy. The Every Child Achieves Act honors those guiding principles while returning greater control and flexibility to our States, to local school boards, and to educators. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their work in crafting this bipartisan bill. I look forward to the debate on it in the week to come, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Social Security Fairness Act of 2015, which I am joining my colleague from Ohio in introducing today. This bill would repeal both the windfall elimination provision, WEP, and the government pension offset, GPO. We believe that these two provisions in the Social Security Act unfairly penalize certain individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. The WEP affects individuals who have worked in both the private sector and in public sector jobs for which Social Security taxes were not withheld. For such individuals, the WEP applies a special formula to calculate benefits, reducing them compared to what would otherwise be paid. The GPO affects retired public employees whose spouses are entitled to Social Security benefits. When these individuals apply for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, the GPO applies an offset, reducing the Social Security benefit based on the amount of that individual's public pension. In some cases, the spouse will not be entitled to any spousal or survivor benefit because of the GPO. The WEP and the GPO have enormous financial implications for many of our teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers and other public employees. Given their important responsibilities, it is simply 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. They have worked long enough to earn their Social Security benefits. Yet, because of the GPO and WEP, they are unable to receive all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. The impact of these two provisions is most acute in 15 States, including Maine, which have state retirement plans that lack a Social Security component. However, it is important to point out that the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in every state, including our emergency responders, other Federal employees, and postal workers. Nationwide, more than \1/3\ of teachers and educating employees, and more than \1/5\ of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/ or the WEP. As of 2013, one and a half million people were affected by the WEP and 615,000 people had their benefits reduced by the GPO. Many more public employees across the country stand to be harmed 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 retirement benefits makes it even more difficult for our federal, state and local governments to recruit and retain the public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. 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, more than 80 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about the impact of these provisions on their retirement security. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security. Roxie Brechlin of Bar Harbor, Maine, is one of many examples of the effect that the GPO and the WEP have on our teachers when they retire. Mrs. Brechlin first began paying into Social Security when she took her first summer job at age 16. After graduation, she continued to pay into Social Security for 18 more years before getting her first teaching job. Mrs. Brechlin worked as a teacher for 23 years, and for 14 of those years she worked full-time at another job during the summer, paying more and more into Social Security each year. Mr. Brechlin recently contacted my office to explain the effect that the WEP and GPO will have on his wife. Mrs. Brechlin recently retired. When she applied for Social Security benefits, the WEP applied, and her benefit was reduced by two thirds. Mr. Brechlin is more concerned about what would happen to his wife if he were to predecease her. Normally, a widow would be eligible to continue to collect 100 percent of her husband's benefit. Mrs. Brechlin, however, would not be able to collect any survivor benefit, due to the application of the GPO. Not only does this fact worry Mr. Brechlin, he also sees it as unfair. It is time for us to take action, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to eliminate these two unfair provisions.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Social Security Fairness Act of 2015, which I am joining my colleague from Ohio in introducing today. This bill would repeal both the windfall elimination provision, WEP, and the government pension offset, GPO. We believe that these two provisions in the Social Security Act unfairly penalize certain individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. The WEP affects individuals who have worked in both the private sector and in public sector jobs for which Social Security taxes were not withheld. For such individuals, the WEP applies a special formula to calculate benefits, reducing them compared to what would otherwise be paid. The GPO affects retired public employees whose spouses are entitled to Social Security benefits. When these individuals apply for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, the GPO applies an offset, reducing the Social Security benefit based on the amount of that individual's public pension. In some cases, the spouse will not be entitled to any spousal or survivor benefit because of the GPO. The WEP and the GPO have enormous financial implications for many of our teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers and other public employees. Given their important responsibilities, it is simply 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. They have worked long enough to earn their Social Security benefits. Yet, because of the GPO and WEP, they are unable to receive all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. The impact of these two provisions is most acute in 15 States, including Maine, which have state retirement plans that lack a Social Security component. However, it is important to point out that the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in every state, including our emergency responders, other Federal employees, and postal workers. Nationwide, more than \1/3\ of teachers and educating employees, and more than \1/5\ of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/ or the WEP. As of 2013, one and a half million people were affected by the WEP and 615,000 people had their benefits reduced by the GPO. Many more public employees across the country stand to be harmed 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 retirement benefits makes it even more difficult for our federal, state and local governments to recruit and retain the public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. 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, more than 80 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about the impact of these provisions on their retirement security. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security. Roxie Brechlin of Bar Harbor, Maine, is one of many examples of the effect that the GPO and the WEP have on our teachers when they retire. Mrs. Brechlin first began paying into Social Security when she took her first summer job at age 16. After graduation, she continued to pay into Social Security for 18 more years before getting her first teaching job. Mrs. Brechlin worked as a teacher for 23 years, and for 14 of those years she worked full-time at another job during the summer, paying more and more into Social Security each year. Mr. Brechlin recently contacted my office to explain the effect that the WEP and GPO will have on his wife. Mrs. Brechlin recently retired. When she applied for Social Security benefits, the WEP applied, and her benefit was reduced by two thirds. Mr. Brechlin is more concerned about what would happen to his wife if he were to predecease her. Normally, a widow would be eligible to continue to collect 100 percent of her husband's benefit. Mrs. Brechlin, however, would not be able to collect any survivor benefit, due to the application of the GPO. Not only does this fact worry Mr. Brechlin, he also sees it as unfair. It is time for us to take action, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to eliminate these two unfair provisions.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by commending my friend and colleague the Senator from Louisiana for coming up with a creative and comprehensive health care bill that I am pleased to cosponsor. As a physician, Senator Cassidy knows far better than most of us in this body what it is like to deliver health care and has made a real effort to come up with a public policy response in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell, which is expected to be handed down later this month. So I thank him for his work and his creativity in tackling a very complex issue. As I mentioned, later this month, the Court is expected to rule in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the availability of premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act in the 37 States that have not established a State-run health insurance exchange. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, as many experts expect it will, 6.4 million Americans who are now receiving premium tax credits through the federally run exchanges will lose their subsidies, and, as a result, their health insurance may well become unaffordable. This includes almost 61,000 people in my State of Maine. Such a decision will place responsibility on Congress and the President to work together to protect those individuals. Senator Cassidy and I believe we can do this by extending the current subsidies for a transition period, as contemplated by the sense-of-Congress language included in the Patient Freedom Act that we are introducing today. But the Supreme Court's decision will also invite us to think anew about how to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high- quality health care. We can advance this goal by revamping and reforming the Affordable Care Act to improve the quality and affordability of health care while retaining the insurance market reforms that are so important to consumers. Senator Cassidy's Patient Freedom Act is precisely the type of new thinking we need. As the title of this bill suggests, the Patient Freedom Act is built on the premise that freeing people to take charge of their health care is superior to the one-size-fits-all approach of ObamaCare. A decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would essentially leave States with two options, absent congressional action. They could either set up a State-run exchange to ensure that their residents have access to the Affordable Care Act subsidies or do nothing and allow their residents to lose these ObamaCare subsidies. Under Senator Cassidy's bill, however, States with federally run exchanges would have a third option. They would have the choice of participating in the new Patient Freedom Act. Participating in the Patient Freedom Act would allow States to structure their health insurance market without an individual mandate or an employer mandate or many of the other expensive mandates under ObamaCare. In return, States would have to offer their citizens a basic health insurance plan that would include first-dollar coverage through a health savings account, basic prescription drug coverage, a high- deductible health plan to protect enrollees against medical bankruptcy, coverage for preexisting conditions--a good provision of the current law that we would retain--coverage through a parent's plan for children up to age 26--another good provision of the law that we would retain-- and there could be no annual or lifetime limits on insurance claims, again a good provision of the current law that we would retain. Here is how it would work: The Federal Government would provide funding directly into the health savings accounts of individuals insured through the Patient Freedom Act. These funds would be phased out for higher income individuals. The aggregate funding for these per- patient, per-capita grants would be determined based on the total amount of funding that the Federal Government would have provided in the form of ObamaCare subsidies in each State, plus any funding each State would have received had they chosen to expand their Medicaid Program, even if, like the State of Maine, they had chosen not to do so. In addition to Federal funds, individuals and employers could make tax-advantaged contributions to these health savings accounts. The bill even provides for a partial tax credit for very low-income individuals who do receive employer-based coverage, but it would help these workers pay for their deductibles and copays. Individuals who are insured under the Patient Freedom Act would receive debit cards tied to their health savings accounts, which they could use to purchase a high-deductible health plan to pay directly for medical expenses or pay premiums for a more generous health insurance policy. In addition, health care providers receiving payment from the health savings accounts would be required to publish cash prices for their services, which would add transparency that we desperately need to move toward a more patient-directed health care future. The promise of patient-directed health care is one of the advantages of this approach, but it has other advantages as well. For example, residents of States that elect this option would no longer face the individual mandate penalty that can cost individuals 2.5 percent of their income and the typical American family of four an estimated $2,100 next year. It would also codify the elimination of the employer mandate in these States, freeing these employers to add jobs and let their full-time employees work 40 hours a week. ObamaCare has been causing some employers to reduce hours for their employees. The result has been smaller paychecks for those workers. Perhaps most important, however, the Patient Freedom Act would do away with what the superintendent of insurance in Maine refers to as ``wage lock.'' That is caused by the fact that the subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges phase out completely at 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. In other words, there is a cliff there. Now, 400 percent of the poverty level is about $47,000 for an individual and $64,000 for a couple. Taxpayers who earn just $1 more than the threshold lose their entire subsidy.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by commending my friend and colleague the Senator from Louisiana for coming up with a creative and comprehensive health care bill that I am pleased to cosponsor. As a physician, Senator Cassidy knows far better than most of us in this body what it is like to deliver health care and has made a real effort to come up with a public policy response in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell, which is expected to be handed down later this month. So I thank him for his work and his creativity in tackling a very complex issue. As I mentioned, later this month, the Court is expected to rule in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the availability of premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act in the 37 States that have not established a State-run health insurance exchange. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, as many experts expect it will, 6.4 million Americans who are now receiving premium tax credits through the federally run exchanges will lose their subsidies, and, as a result, their health insurance may well become unaffordable. This includes almost 61,000 people in my State of Maine. Such a decision will place responsibility on Congress and the President to work together to protect those individuals. Senator Cassidy and I believe we can do this by extending the current subsidies for a transition period, as contemplated by the sense-of-Congress language included in the Patient Freedom Act that we are introducing today. But the Supreme Court's decision will also invite us to think anew about how to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high- quality health care. We can advance this goal by revamping and reforming the Affordable Care Act to improve the quality and affordability of health care while retaining the insurance market reforms that are so important to consumers. Senator Cassidy's Patient Freedom Act is precisely the type of new thinking we need. As the title of this bill suggests, the Patient Freedom Act is built on the premise that freeing people to take charge of their health care is superior to the one-size-fits-all approach of ObamaCare. A decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would essentially leave States with two options, absent congressional action. They could either set up a State-run exchange to ensure that their residents have access to the Affordable Care Act subsidies or do nothing and allow their residents to lose these ObamaCare subsidies. Under Senator Cassidy's bill, however, States with federally run exchanges would have a third option. They would have the choice of participating in the new Patient Freedom Act. Participating in the Patient Freedom Act would allow States to structure their health insurance market without an individual mandate or an employer mandate or many of the other expensive mandates under ObamaCare. In return, States would have to offer their citizens a basic health insurance plan that would include first-dollar coverage through a health savings account, basic prescription drug coverage, a high- deductible health plan to protect enrollees against medical bankruptcy, coverage for preexisting conditions--a good provision of the current law that we would retain--coverage through a parent's plan for children up to age 26--another good provision of the law that we would retain-- and there could be no annual or lifetime limits on insurance claims, again a good provision of the current law that we would retain. Here is how it would work: The Federal Government would provide funding directly into the health savings accounts of individuals insured through the Patient Freedom Act. These funds would be phased out for higher income individuals. The aggregate funding for these per- patient, per-capita grants would be determined based on the total amount of funding that the Federal Government would have provided in the form of ObamaCare subsidies in each State, plus any funding each State would have received had they chosen to expand their Medicaid Program, even if, like the State of Maine, they had chosen not to do so. In addition to Federal funds, individuals and employers could make tax-advantaged contributions to these health savings accounts. The bill even provides for a partial tax credit for very low-income individuals who do receive employer-based coverage, but it would help these workers pay for their deductibles and copays. Individuals who are insured under the Patient Freedom Act would receive debit cards tied to their health savings accounts, which they could use to purchase a high-deductible health plan to pay directly for medical expenses or pay premiums for a more generous health insurance policy. In addition, health care providers receiving payment from the health savings accounts would be required to publish cash prices for their services, which would add transparency that we desperately need to move toward a more patient-directed health care future. The promise of patient-directed health care is one of the advantages of this approach, but it has other advantages as well. For example, residents of States that elect this option would no longer face the individual mandate penalty that can cost individuals 2.5 percent of their income and the typical American family of four an estimated $2,100 next year. It would also codify the elimination of the employer mandate in these States, freeing these employers to add jobs and let their full-time employees work 40 hours a week. ObamaCare has been causing some employers to reduce hours for their employees. The result has been smaller paychecks for those workers. Perhaps most important, however, the Patient Freedom Act would do away with what the superintendent of insurance in Maine refers to as ``wage lock.'' That is caused by the fact that the subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges phase out completely at 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. In other words, there is a cliff there. Now, 400 percent of the poverty level is about $47,000 for an individual and $64,000 for a couple. Taxpayers who earn just $1 more than the threshold lose their entire subsidy.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, in introducing the Power Efficiency and Resilience, POWER, Act. The POWER Act would expand tax incentives for industrial energy efficiency systems, including combined heat and power, CHP, and waste heat to power, WHP, technologies, making the incentives more accessible an providing parity with other forms of renewable energy. The upfront costs of CHP and WHP can be expensive, and facilities seeking to lower their energy bills often lack access to the capital needed for purchasing the equipment. The POWER Act aims to spur investment in these efficient technologies that capture wasted heat from electricity generation and industrial processes and use it to heat or cool buildings or to generate additional electricity. Capturing this otherwise wasted resource has the potential to increase electrical generation efficiency by nearly 80 percent and reduce electricity costs for industrial users. While technologies such as solar energy and fuel cells currently benefit from a 30 percent investment tax credit, ITC, the incentives for CHP are more limited. CHP systems are only eligible for a 10 percent ITC for the first 15 megawatts, MW, of projects that are smaller than 50 MW in capacity. Moreover, while WHP has the potential to produce 15 gigawatts of emissions-free electricity nationwide, it currently does not qualify for the ITC. The limits on the size and scope of the ITC have hampered companies from making important investments to increase their efficiency. The POWER Act would increase the ITC for CHP to 30 percent, allow WHP to qualify for the credit, remove the limit on project size to ensure large industrial systems are eligible, and extend the credit through December 2018 to allow time for equipment purchase, installation, and permitting. By making our industrial sector more efficient, we would be reducing costs for manufacturers and helping them to better compete in the global marketplace. CHP can also help us be a more resilient nation. Critical institutions that have combined heat and power can keep the power on even when the lights go out. That is why some hospitals, wastewater treatment plants, and military bases are installing CHP-- they have to keep operating even in extreme weather or during blackouts. The POWER Act can save energy, reduce costs, build resilience, and reduce emissions. Woodard & Curran, headquartered in Portland, Maine, noted in its support for the bill that the POWER Act: ``. . . will allow more companies to reduce energy use and costs by installing combined heat and power, CHP, systems. As a developer of such projects, we know that this technology poses a significant opportunity to generate new businesses, create jobs, and reduce our Nation's energy consumption. CHP is still largely an untapped resource, and we could double its installed capacity over the next decade with the right policies in place.'' Another company in Scarborough, ME, Self-Gen, Inc., stated: ``Every year, the United States sends enough wasted heat from electricity generation up our chimneys to power Japan. Combined heat and power can harness this heat as a resource to create more electricity, nearly doubling efficiency. Senator Collins' POWER Act will help us use this technology throughout Maine and across the nation, moving the United States towards increased energy independence.'' The POWER Act would allow more U.S. companies to install CHP and WHP systems, which would help improve the energy efficiency and lower costs for some of the largest energy users. The legislation has the support of a broad coalition of businesses from across the country, several environmental organizations, and a number of trade associations. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, in introducing the Power Efficiency and Resilience, POWER, Act. The POWER Act would expand tax incentives for industrial energy efficiency systems, including combined heat and power, CHP, and waste heat to power, WHP, technologies, making the incentives more accessible an providing parity with other forms of renewable energy. The upfront costs of CHP and WHP can be expensive, and facilities seeking to lower their energy bills often lack access to the capital needed for purchasing the equipment. The POWER Act aims to spur investment in these efficient technologies that capture wasted heat from electricity generation and industrial processes and use it to heat or cool buildings or to generate additional electricity. Capturing this otherwise wasted resource has the potential to increase electrical generation efficiency by nearly 80 percent and reduce electricity costs for industrial users. While technologies such as solar energy and fuel cells currently benefit from a 30 percent investment tax credit, ITC, the incentives for CHP are more limited. CHP systems are only eligible for a 10 percent ITC for the first 15 megawatts, MW, of projects that are smaller than 50 MW in capacity. Moreover, while WHP has the potential to produce 15 gigawatts of emissions-free electricity nationwide, it currently does not qualify for the ITC. The limits on the size and scope of the ITC have hampered companies from making important investments to increase their efficiency. The POWER Act would increase the ITC for CHP to 30 percent, allow WHP to qualify for the credit, remove the limit on project size to ensure large industrial systems are eligible, and extend the credit through December 2018 to allow time for equipment purchase, installation, and permitting. By making our industrial sector more efficient, we would be reducing costs for manufacturers and helping them to better compete in the global marketplace. CHP can also help us be a more resilient nation. Critical institutions that have combined heat and power can keep the power on even when the lights go out. That is why some hospitals, wastewater treatment plants, and military bases are installing CHP-- they have to keep operating even in extreme weather or during blackouts. The POWER Act can save energy, reduce costs, build resilience, and reduce emissions. Woodard & Curran, headquartered in Portland, Maine, noted in its support for the bill that the POWER Act: ``. . . will allow more companies to reduce energy use and costs by installing combined heat and power, CHP, systems. As a developer of such projects, we know that this technology poses a significant opportunity to generate new businesses, create jobs, and reduce our Nation's energy consumption. CHP is still largely an untapped resource, and we could double its installed capacity over the next decade with the right policies in place.'' Another company in Scarborough, ME, Self-Gen, Inc., stated: ``Every year, the United States sends enough wasted heat from electricity generation up our chimneys to power Japan. Combined heat and power can harness this heat as a resource to create more electricity, nearly doubling efficiency. Senator Collins' POWER Act will help us use this technology throughout Maine and across the nation, moving the United States towards increased energy independence.'' The POWER Act would allow more U.S. companies to install CHP and WHP systems, which would help improve the energy efficiency and lower costs for some of the largest energy users. The legislation has the support of a broad coalition of businesses from across the country, several environmental organizations, and a number of trade associations. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which provides our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the critical resources they require to meet our critical national security missions. Let me begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to both the chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for tackling many of the complex and challenging issues facing our Nation and our military. During my time in the Senate, I have never been more concerned about global instability and the threats posed to our country by radical Islamic extremists. We must work together to ensure our collective defense and this bill puts us on the path to doing so. The legislation affirms the strategic importance of our Navy and shipbuilding programs by fully funding the DDG 1000 Program and authorizing $400 million in incremental funding authority toward an additional DDG 51 beyond those included in the current multiyear procurement contract. This additional ship is very much needed by our Navy and it would fulfill the terms of a 2002 swap agreement between the two major shipbuilders regarding the construction of large surface combatants. Both my colleague Senator Angus King and I advocated for these critical provisions. I am so proud of the highly skilled and hard-working men and women of Bath Iron Works in my State who construct these ships for the Navy. The DDG 1000 is the lead ship of its class. It will bolster our ability to project power. It promises to deliver a wide array of cutting-edge innovations such as stealth technology, electric propulsion, and a smaller crew size. Our destroyers are the workhorses of the Navy. Recently, the Bath- built USS Farragut, which I was honored to christen almost 10 years ago, was dispatched to the Strait of Hormuz after Iranian naval forces harassed commercial vessels transiting the area. The USS Farragut escorted U.S.-flagged ships through the Strait, projecting American power and sending a strong signal to enemies and allies alike that the U.S. Navy is prepared and ready to respond to acts of aggression. Our Navy fleet provides the robust forward presence our Nation requires to respond not only to acts of aggression but to humanitarian disasters as well as to protect critical trade groups that facilitate global commerce and security. The power of presence cannot be taken for granted or ignored, which is why the investments in our Navy that are authorized by this bill are so critical. We simply need more ships to be where we want to be in the world when we want to be and need to be there. The Navy's plan shows that unless we make the investments that are needed, our fleet will continue to shrink and, thus, jeopardize our national security. This bill also maintains investments in our public shipyards, which are another set of strategic facilities in our national security arsenal. Recently, I had the honor of hosting our Secretary of Labor, Thomas Perez, in Maine. We visited and were so impressed by the very successful apprenticeship program at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. The shipyard in Kittery is one of only four remaining public naval shipyards, and it is renowned for its skilled and dedicated workforce that is helping our Nation transition from the Los Angeles Class to the Virginia Class submarines. This bill also provides the resources necessary to help our allies and partners around the world. When Hamas fired more than 3,000 rockets into Israel last summer, the value of U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs became crystal clear. During those countless attacks, it was the Iron Dome missile defense system developed in Israel, with cooperation and assistance from the United States, that saved countless civilian lives. In addition, this bill continues to improve and strengthen the military's response to sexual assault. How well I remember at an Armed Services subcommittee hearing a decade ago when I first raised the issue of sexual assault in the military, and how dismissive the reply was of GEN George Casey. Fortunately, that attitude has changed, and in the last 2 years, significant reforms have been implemented to help combat these crimes and improve services and care for the survivors of sexual assault. Still, the work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality remains unfinished business. Key provisions in this year's bill build upon the past reforms we have made by improving the protections for victims of sexual assault, enhancing confidential reporting options, and expanding the authority of special victims' counsel to assist the survivors of sexual assault. The Department of Defense must, however, do more to eliminate, once and for all, retaliation against the victims of sexual assault who come forward to report these crimes. To further support our men and women in uniform, this bill rejects a provision proposed by the administration that would consolidate TRICARE and limit care options for servicemembers and their families. This bill preserves the U.S. Family Health Plan, which serves as a model of high- quality and cost-effective care. This program has been extremely successful and popular among enrollees in Maine. I have been impressed with the work I have seen them do in case management of chronic diseases such as diabetes. This bill also directs the Pentagon to rein in or eliminate unnecessary, wasteful spending. It cuts headquarters and administrative costs by 7.5 percent in the year 2016. In this time of budget constraints, we owe it to taxpayers to assess every efficiency and use every cost-saving measure, while also continuing to ensure the security of our Nation. Finally, I wish to thank the committee for making the right decision in rejecting the President's proposal to authorize a new base realignment and closure round in 2016. I have been through BRAC rounds, and they have required significant costs and have failed to deliver on the promised savings, as has been documented by the Government Accountability Office--GAO. This bill would also better tailor the HUBZone Program to meet the needs of communities affected by the closure of U.S. military installations through the previous BRAC process. The provisions included in the bill are drawn from the HUBZone Expansion Act that I authored with my colleague Senator King. I urge support of this highly significant legislation. I am pleased to have worked with the members of the committee on which I have served for so many years. Again, I congratulate the leaders of the committee and the members of the committee for their excellent work. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.