Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging, having adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress, have a copy of their rules printed in the Record pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Alaska for yielding to me for this purpose and I commend her, as well as the Senator from Washington State, for their extraordinary management of this bill. I am pleased to report that the amendment I have called up and made pending is actually a bipartisan initiative. It is cosponsored by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and its purpose is to help school officials to learn more easily about Federal programs and incentives that are available to improve energy efficiency and thus lower costs for our Nation's schools. There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more energy efficient, but in many cases schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. The reason for that is because they are scattered across several agencies and are difficult to access. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that Senator Warner and I are not proposing the creation of any new programs to help schools become more energy efficient but rather to have more coordination and to streamline those programs which already exist. Our amendment would require the Department of Energy to be the leader of these programs and help schools identify and navigate them, and that in turn would be a great service to our Nation's schools. As I said, by providing a streamlined coordinating structure, this amendment would help schools navigate available Federal programs and financing without authorizing new programs or funding. Decisions about how best to meet the energy needs of their schools would appropriately remain in the hands of States, school boards, and local officials. Specifically, the amendment would establish the Department of Energy as the lead agency for coordinating and disseminating information on existing Federal energy efficiency programs and financing options available to schools for initiating, developing, and financing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy retrofitting projects. The amendment would also require DOE to review existing Federal programs--scattered at the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Treasury, the IRS, and EPA--so schools know what is available. It would also streamline communication and outreach to the States, local education agencies, and schools and the development of a mechanism for forming a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of the projects. Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and development of such projects to better ensure their success. Assisting our nation's schools in navigating and tapping into existing federal programs to lower energy usage and save money makes good common sense. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Collins-Warner amendment No. 35. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, in President Obama's State of the Union Address last week, he outlined an agenda focused on what he called middle-class economics, which he described as providing Americans with the ``tools they needed to go as far as their effort and their dreams will take them.'' Our country thrives when hard-working Americans prosper. The President was right to praise policies, such as the GI bill and Social Security, that have helped us to do just that. That is why I am perplexed at the President's proposal to tax the earnings of 529 college savings plan accounts. Rather than help American families meet the onerous cost of a college education, this new tax would greatly diminish the benefits of a law that is helping millions of parents plan for their children's futures. The President's proposal undermines the very values we should be promoting--families making sacrifices today in order to better provide for their children tomorrow. The President's plan would also lead to more student loan debt for many young people at a time when concern over the level of debt is rising. I would also note that the President has proposed eliminating the tax deduction on interest on student loan payments. One of the first questions new parents ask themselves is how they will be able to pay for their children's education. For the past 14 years the 529 accounts have been an important part of the answer. They have allowed parents to save for their children's education in tax- advantaged accounts. Regular, affordable contributions made with after- tax dollars from their paychecks grow over time. When college years start, those savings and the earnings from their investments can be withdrawn tax free for educational expenses. These small sacrifices made from paycheck to paycheck can have an enormous impact, making real the dream of higher education. Parents know that receiving a college degree greatly improves their child's future earnings potential. In fact, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau in the year 2011, individuals with college degrees earn approximately $1 million more over the course of their careers than do workers with high school diplomas. Census data also showed that people with higher levels of education are more likely to be employed full time year-round. College graduates also tend to have access to more specialized jobs that, in turn, yield higher wages. Critics of the 529 plans assert that they disproportionately benefit very high-income families who could afford to pay for college without the tax-free growth in these dedicated savings accounts. Data from the College Savings Foundation, however, counters this assertion. According to the foundation, the average value in one of these 529 accounts is $19,774. Additionally, the average contribution to accounts that receive regular electronic contributions, such as those coming from paycheck withholding, is just $175 a month. That is clearly more in line with hard-working families trying to make ends meet than with affluent families who enjoy significant disposable income. My home State provides a great example of the benefits of the 529 law. After this law was passed in 2001, thousands of Maine families established these accounts, but then came a powerful extra incentive. In 2008 the Harold Alfond Foundation, which was established by one of Maine's greatest philanthropists, created the Harold Alfond College Challenge. This program now provides a $500 contribution to the college savings account of every baby born in Maine. To date, some 23,000 Maine families have used this generous gift to begin planning for the future education of their children. As their parents' own contributions are added to the account, the future becomes even brighter for these children and for our State. As the children grow and make their own contributions from afterschool and summer jobs, so too grows their appreciation of financial responsibility and self-reliance. The President says his proposal is driven in part by the need to simplify the Tax Code. Our Tax Code certainly needs simplification, and I hope that becomes a major accomplishment of this Congress. But the question must be asked--how does creating a difference between the 529 contributions already made, which would remain untaxed, and new contributions, which would be taxed, simplify anything? And perhaps more to the point, in addition to simplification, our Tax Code needs predictability. Before I joined the Senate, I was employed at Husson University in Bangor, ME--an outstanding institution that has a high percentage of students who are the very first in their families to attend college. Every day, I saw how hard parents and students worked, how many sacrifices they made in order to make higher education a reality. My experience at Husson is the chief reason why one of the very first bills I introduced in this Chamber was the College Affordability and Access Act. That bill called for creating tax-preferred education savings account--the precursor to the Coverdell savings accounts--tax incentives for employer-provided educational assistance, and a tax deduction for student loan interest. Many provisions of that bill are now law but would also be harmed by the President's proposal. The 529 college savings plan program channels the determination that I saw while working at Husson University and that exists throughout our great country into a tangible benefit built upon the virtues of saving and planning for the future. Changing the tax rules for the 529 accounts would break a promise to families across this country who are working hard to save for their children's educations to help them attain a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to make college more accessible and more affordable and to save the 529 college savings plan program. I thank the sponsors and managers of this bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 35.

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Before I begin my comments, let me commend the Presiding Officer on her excellent presentation last night. The Presiding Officer did an extraordinary job and made all of us very proud. Forty Hours is Full Time Act

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 2 weeks ago Senator Joe Donnelly and I reintroduced bipartisan legislation that we call the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. It would correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act that threatens the hours and pay of part-time workers all across America. Our bill would change the definition of ``full-time'' work under ObamaCare from 30 hours a week to the standard 40 hours a week, a commonsense threshold that has always been the standard for full-time work. In fact, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is 40 hours a week that defines ``full time,'' after which workers are eligible in many cases for overtime. Information I received from the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine demonstrates that this illogical definition of ``full-time'' work could result in hundreds of home health care workers losing their jobs and 1,000 seniors losing access to home care services in the State of Maine alone. The impact would be just as severe outside of Maine, a point driven home by a letter I recently received from the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, an organization that represents caregivers who provide in-home health and hospice services to chronically ill, disabled, and dying Americans. The association just conducted a survey of its members that reveals the devastating impact this definition will have on home care and hospice services around the country if Congress does not act to change it. Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the key findings of this survey. Nationally, four out of five home care and hospice providers are unable to provide health benefits to their employees because they rely on government programs such as Medicaid, with its low reimbursement levels, and because they provide services to people with limited incomes. So it is not as if they can simply boost their rates. In many cases their rates are set by Medicaid and at a very low level. In other cases they are serving people with limited incomes who simply cannot afford more expensive home care. Another finding: Three out of four providers will have to cut the hours of their caregivers. That means those caregivers who are engaged in such compassionate and skilled work will have smaller paychecks on which to live. Nine out of ten providers expect patients to lose access to home care in their communities. One in five providers of home care and hospice services will actually have to close their doors. Think of the impact closing one in five home care and hospice agencies would have on America's seniors and our disabled citizens. In my view, taking action to spare this vulnerable population would, by itself, justify restoring the threshold for full- time work to the standard 40 hours a week. But this is not the only reason to do so. Reforming the law would also help protect the caregivers who provide the services as well as their patients, and ironically it would protect taxpayers as well. Data from Maine's Medicaid Program shows that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. If access to these services is restricted because of the application of the 30-hour rule, those in need of these services will be forced into costlier forms of care paid for by Medicaid and Medicare, such as hospitals and nursing homes, driving up both Federal and State costs. In addition, the patients now served by home health care providers would no longer be able to receive vital care in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes. So whether we look at it from the perspective of the patients served or the caregivers employed or the taxpayers who pay for the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, this hurts all three groups. Of course, there is obviously a lot of overlap among those groups. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, immediately following my remarks, an excellent letter from the National Association for Home Care & Hospice which elaborates on the problems created by this definition under ObamaCare. Of course, the justification for using the standard definition of full-time work extends far beyond the field of home care services to the full breadth of our economy. Raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week is necessary not only to protect the paychecks of workers employed by private sector businesses, such as restaurants and hotel staff, but also to protect those who work in the public sector, such as substitute teachers, ed techs, and schoolbus drivers, to name just a few. The 30-hour rule will not only harm school staff who want and need more work, but it will also hurt our students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom. It does not make sense to have to limit substitute teachers to 29 hours a week because of the definition of ``full-time'' work under ObamaCare. That means there will be a revolving door of substitutes in our classrooms and lower paychecks once again for those substitute teachers. I have also heard of a school district that has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs who have been forced to give up one of their jobs, thus hurting their financial security. Several Maine municipalities have described to me the impact on their workers, particularly volunteer and oncall firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and employees of the parks and recreation and public works departments. Although the IRS adopted regulations last year in an attempt to exclude volunteer firefighters from the calculation of the employer mandate, these regulations do not give our towns and cities the level of protection provided by the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. In most Maine communities, the fire department is staffed by volunteers and oncall firefighters who typically have health care coverage through their regular day jobs. In fact, in Maine, oncall firefighters for our smaller communities often serve as full-time firefighters--receiving full health care benefits--in a neighboring community. They help the smaller towns by serving as on-call firefighters. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare it doesn't matter that these on-call firefighters already have health care coverage; the towns that employ them for more than 30 hours a week may still face the $2,000 penalty per on-call firefighter for doing so. This makes no sense whatsoever. For example, one town in southern Maine has told me that the 30-hour rule will require it to offer health care coverage to more than a dozen volunteer and on-call firefighters who do not qualify for coverage from the town today. The cost of doing so will drive up that town's health care budget by 20 percent at a time when its budget is already stretched to the breaking point. Another Maine community has employees who work part time but year- round performing various tasks, including plowing and salting the roads in the winter. These employees typically work 30 to 34 hours a week, and they do not qualify for health benefits under the town's plan. Since the town cannot afford to add them to its health care plan, it simply will have no choice but to cut their hours back to 29 hours a week. The town doesn't want to do that. The workers don't want to have their hours cut. As anyone who has lived in Maine or any Northern State can tell you, snowstorms do not keep to a schedule. Mother Nature seems not to have heard about the 30-hour workweek under ObamaCare. So it will be a challenge for this town to keep its roads safe, clear, and passable in the winter while making sure its part-time employees don't exceed 29 hours a week. So, once again, what is the result? Reduced hours, a smaller paycheck for part-time workers, and more costs for the town and more disruption in the services it provides. Winters are long in Maine and summers are short. Towns have to manage their workers' schedules to match the season, but the 30-hour rule will make it very difficult for them to do so. For example, one town in central Maine told me that a number of its employees work full time in its parks and recreations department in the summer, and then they work part time in the winter. Because of the 30- hour rule, however, this town won't be able to stagger the schedules of these employees in the winter the way it used to and will have to lay them off instead and then, adding insult to injury, pay them unemployment during the layoff period. So here we have a case where the law is actually going to force the town to lay off part-time employees who want to work. This makes no sense. Part-time workers who are hired to help with snow removal are often shifted to other departments in the spring and summer months to assist full-time employees or to take their place when they are on vacation. But the 30-hour rule once again takes away the flexibility towns need to do this. For example, one town in northern Maine has told me that the part- time workers it has relied upon to help cover vacation time for its firefighters in the summer months will have to be cut back to 29 hours a week because the town cannot afford to pay the $2,000 penalty it will face for each employee if they work their usual hours. Raising the threshold for full-time work to 40 hours a week would restore the flexibility this town needs to manage its workforce, give these part- time workers more hours and the bigger paychecks they need, and help full-time firefighters get a break after a long, tough winter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 1 more minute.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Today I have described just some of the damage the 30-hour rule is doing to municipal employees, to providers of home health care and hospice services, and to those who work in our school systems. Nationwide, 100 school systems have had to scale back the hours of their workers already. Employees in all industries--for-profit and non- profit, private sector and public sector--are similarly affected. Regardless of the varying views of Senators in this Chamber on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. Senator Donnelly has introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Lisa Murkowski that would do just that. It is the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. I further request that the time not be charged to either side on the debate on the Keystone pipeline, if that is necessary.

Ms. COLLINS. I asked unanimous consent to proceed for up to 15 minutes as in morning business, and since my remarks do not pertain to the debate for the Keystone Pipeline, that the time not be charged to either side in that debate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to serve on the Senate Special Committee on Aging since my very first days in the Senate, and I am honored to have been elected to chair this committee for the 114th Congress. I wish to welcome the Presiding Officer, Senator Cotton of Arkansas, to the committee. He will be a new member on our committee, and I believe he will enjoy his service as much as I have. My service on the aging committee is particularly appropriate since Maine is the oldest State in the Nation by median age. Many people would guess that Florida would have that distinction, but, in fact, it is the great State of Maine. Throughout its history, the aging committee has spurred Congress to action on issues that are important to older Americans through its hearings, its investigations, and its reports. This is the first time a Maine Senator has chaired the committee since the 1990s, when my predecessor, mentor, and friend, Senator Bill Cohen, served as chairman. I wish to share with my colleagues today my priorities for the committee as we begin this new Congress. I have three major priorities for the committee's work: first, retirement security; second, investments in biomedical research targeting diseases that disproportionately affect older Americans, such as Alzheimer's and diabetes; and, third, protecting seniors against financial exploitation and scams. I am increasingly concerned that our seniors will not have adequate savings and other financial resources during their retirement years. The committee will, therefore, focus on retirement security and, in particular, on the need to encourage more savings and better financial planning. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there currently is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings Americans have today and what they should have in order to maintain their standard of living during retirement. Nationally, one in four Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security. In the State of Maine, the number is one in three. Social Security provides an absolutely vital safety net. However, with an average benefit of just $16,000 a year, it certainly is not enough to finance a comfortable retirement for many Americans. According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. That is up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago, and the Boston College analysis demonstrates that their concern is warranted. There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the demise of many defined benefit pension plans in the private sector; the severity of the recent financial crisis, which wiped out much of the net worth of many seniors, at least temporarily; rising health care costs; the need for long-term care; and, most of all, the simple fact that Americans are living far longer than we used to. Many Americans reaching retirement age also have more debt than retirees of previous generations. I remember when my parents paid off the mortgage on their home and had a mortgage-burning party. Well, today, people who are the age my parents were when they paid off their house are taking on new debt and new mortgages. We found in the aging committee that there are seniors who are still paying off their student loans or the student loans of their children. These are all issues I look forward to the committee exploring in depth in this new Congress. Another priority will be highlighting the importance of biomedical research on diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes, which take such a devastating toll on older Americans and their families. Investments in biomedical research not only improve the health and longevity of Americans but also provide benefits to our economy and to the Federal budget. For example, nearly one out of three Medicare dollars is spent treating people living with diabetes. According to multiple economic analyses, there is roughly a 2-to-1 return on investment in Federal support for biomedical research. This investment at the National Institutes of Health and at research centers across the country spur job creation and are critical to America's competitiveness in the global research environment. As the Senate cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am particularly committed to helping to spur breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease, which has had such a devastating impact on 5.2 million Americans and their families. In addition to the suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States an astonishing $214 billion a year. That includes $150 billion in costs to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These costs will only skyrocket as the baby boom generation ages. Fortunately, there is promising research that holds hope for Alzheimer's patients and their families. The research community is poised to make important advances through clinical trials and investigating new therapeutic targets. But adequate funding is critical to advance this research and to achieve these breakthroughs. At a time when the United States is spending more than $200 billion a year for Alzheimer's patients, we are spending less than three-tenths of 1 percent of that amount--about $600 million a year--on research. Surely, we can do more for Alzheimer's, given its tremendous human and economic price. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease has as its primary goal the prevention and effective treatment of Alzheimer's by the year 2025. To meet that goal, the chairman of the Federal Alzheimer's Advisory Council says that we need to devote $2 billion a year to Alzheimer's research. Well, think about that. That is only 1 percent-- in fact, it is less than 1 percent--of what we as a society are spending to care for people with Alzheimer's. That investment will lead to better treatments and ultimately to a means of prevention or even a cure for this awful and expensive disease. The aging committee will also continue its focus on scams that target our seniors, such as the Jamaican lottery phone scam we exposed in the last Congress. This nefarious scheme, which is estimated to have cost Americans as much as $300 million a year, particularly targeted seniors in the Northeast. Some seniors in my State lost tens of thousands of dollars to the scam which involved a con artist calling a victim to tell him or her that they had won the Jamaican lottery but needed to pay fees to process the winnings. I don't need to tell my colleagues that these seniors had won nothing of the sort. But this was a very sophisticated scheme. In addition to educating seniors to help them avoid becoming victims of such scams, the hearing resulted in the Jamaican Government passing new laws targeting the scammers and prompted Federal law enforcement to make several arrests. The aging committee will also continue its fraud hotline to help protect seniors from these kinds of scams and financial exploitation, and the phone number for that fraud hotline, which is toll-free, is 1-855-303-9470. In addition to these three major priorities, it is my hope our committee in the second year will also take a close look--really scrutinize--Federal programs designed to help our seniors, such as those authorized by the Older Americans Act. We want to make sure these programs are as effective and efficient as possible and that their benefits reach those seniors as intended. So we will be performing that oversight function and sharing our findings with the committee of jurisdiction--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--on which I am also privileged to serve. The Senate Special Committee on Aging has a long history and tradition of bipartisanship, and my work on this committee during the past Congress was particularly rewarding because of the strong partnership I forged with the committee chairman, the senior Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson. I look forward to continuing that bipartisan tradition with my good friend and close colleague, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who will be serving as the committee's ranking member in the 114th Congress. Finally, I encourage the Presiding Officer and all of the other members of the committee not only to be active participants in the committee but also to share with us their thoughts on issues that we should pursue. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut. We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for ``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full- time'' work. Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American actually works 8.7 hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a week. The Obamacare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice. Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent'' as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full- time equivalent.'' The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January of next year. Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger. These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected. I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's 30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement. For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom. Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events, and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial security. The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher education. According to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours for students and faculty. It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose access to home care services--in Maine alone. Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours they need, Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up reducing the home care services available to seniors, depriving them of care or forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs. Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.'' Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.'' The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to 40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of ``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a sensible definition in keeping with actual practice. Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, Senator Donnelly and I are reintroducing the Forty Hours is Full-time Act to correct a serious flaw in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, that is already causing workers to have their hours reduced and their pay cut. We are pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. Our legislation would raise the threshold for ``full-time'' work in Obamacare to the standard 40 hours a week. This is consistent with the threshold for overtime eligibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the common-sense understanding of ``full- time'' work. Under Obamacare, an employee working just 30 hours a week is defined as ``full-time,'' a definition that is completely out-of-step with standard employment practices in the U.S. today. According to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American actually works 8.7 hours per day, which equates to roughly 44 hours a week. The Obamacare definition is nearly one-third lower than actual practice. Similarly, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is ten hours a week fewer than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study of the budget and staffing required by the IRS to implement Obamacare. In that report, the GAO described a ``full-time equivalent'' as: ``a measure of staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 2,080 hours per year, or 40 hours per week. . . .'' Even the Office of Management and Budget recognizes that 30-hours is not ``full-time.'' A circular it issued to Federal agencies actually directs them to calculate staffing levels using more than 40 hours a week as a ``full- time equivalent.'' The effect of using the 30-hour a week threshold is to artificially drive-up the number of ``full-time'' workers for purposes of calculating the penalties to which employers are exposed under Obamacare. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' employee. While these draconian penalities were scheduled to begin in January of last year, we have yet to feel their full effect because the Obama administration delayed their implementation through 2014, perhaps knowing the negative impact that will result. But that artificial grace-period expired January 1 for employers with 100 or more workers and will end for employers with between 50 and 99 employees in January of next year. Needless to say, these penalties will force many employers to restrict or reduce the hours their employees are allowed to work, so they are no longer considered ``full-time'' for the purposes of the law. In addition, these penalties will discourage employers from growing or adding jobs, particularly those close to the 50-job trigger. These are not hypothetical concerns. According to the Investors Business Daily, more than 450 employers had cut work hours or staffing levels in response to Obamacare as of September of last year. Employees of for-profit businesses are not the only ones threatened by Obamacare's illogical definition of full-time work. Public sector employees and those who work for non-profits are also affected. I am concerned that educators, school employees, and students will be particularly hard hit. As the ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, explained in a letter in support of our bill, Obamacare's 30-hour threshold puts an ``undue burden on school systems across the Nation, many of [which] will struggle to staff their schools to meet their educational mission'' while complying with this requirement. For example, the school superintendent of Bangor, ME, has told me that Obamacare will require that school district to reduce substitute teacher hours to make sure they don't exceed 29 hours a week. This will harm not only the substitute teachers who want and need more work, but it will also harm students by causing unnecessary disruption in the classroom. Likewise, in Indiana, a county school district had to reduce the hours of part-time school bus drivers to make sure they do not work more than the 30-hour threshold. As a result, the school district has been forced to cut field trips and transportation to athletic events, and employees who used to work more than 30 hours total in two jobs have been forced to give up one of their jobs, hurting their financial security. The 30-hour rule will also affect our Nation's institutions of higher education. According to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, Obamacare's full-time work definition has already caused 122 schools to announce new policies capping hours for students and faculty. It is troubling that the 30-hour threshold will also harm delivery of home care services. The requirement will likely result in reduced access to needed services for some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens: home-bound seniors, individuals with disabilities, and recently discharged hospital and nursing home patients. Information provided to my office by the Home Care & Hospice Alliance of Maine shows that many of its member organizations will be forced to reduce work hours for employees or even to cease operations due to Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work. If that happens, hundreds of home care workers could lose their jobs, and a thousand seniors could lose access to home care services--in Maine alone. Data from Maine's Medicaid program show that home care services are extremely cost-effective compared to alternatives. Thus, by making it harder for home care service providers to give their workers the hours they need, Obamacare's definition of ``full-time'' work will end up reducing the home care services available to seniors, depriving them of care or forcing them into costlier care, driving up Federal costs. Before I close, I would like to read a few lines from a letter I recently received from Randy Wadleigh, the owner of a well-known and much-loved restaurant institution in Maine called ``Governor's.'' Randy's letter sums up what Maine employers have always told me--their employees are the heart and souls of their businesses, and are the face of their companies to the public. As Randy puts it, businesses recognize the importance of their workers ``because without GREAT employees, businesses really don't have anything. [The 30-hour threshold] is hurting many of our employees. They don't understand it, they can't afford it and they just want to work more hours.'' The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will protect these workers by changing the definition of ``full-time'' work in the ACA to 40 hours a week, and making a corresponding change in the definition of ``full-time equivalent'' employee to 174 hours per month. This is a sensible definition in keeping with actual practice. Among the many organizations that have endorsed our bill are: the College & University Professional Association for Human Resources, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the American Staffing Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Food Marketing Institute, the International Franchise Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the American Rental Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the National Grocers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, ASAA, the School Superintendents Association, the Society for Human Resource Management, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Regardless of the varying views of Senators on the Affordable Care Act, surely we ought to be able to agree to fix this problem in the law that is hurting workers' paychecks and creating chaos for employers. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is a great pleasure but a bittersweet moment for me to rise on the Senate floor to pay tribute to a dear friend and an esteemed colleague, Senator Saxby Chambliss. After 20 years in Congress--8 in the House and 12 here in the Senate--Senator Chambliss retires from this phase of service to Georgia and to our Nation with a well-deserved reputation as a true statesman. At a time when the coarsening political discourse across our Nation and here in Congress is a growing concern, Senator Chambliss is a shining example of expertise and ability combined with civility and respect. He leaves Congress not only with many friends on both sides of the aisle, but also with many accomplishments to his credit. His leadership in national security and intelligence in both Chambers has been a great asset to our Nation. From agriculture to armed services, Senator Chambliss has been an informed and effective advocate for his constituents and for the American people. The golfers here might consider the hole-in-one he famously scored in a foursome with President Obama last year to be worthy of mention. Personally, as the founder and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I would consider his dedication to the cause of juvenile diabetes to be a true highlight. I have also had the great pleasure of serving with Senator Chambliss both on the Intelligence Committee, where he is the vice chairman, and previously on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I saw firsthand his extraordinary grasp of complicated issues that are so critical to the security of our Nation. I also witnessed how he would listen carefully to the views of others, whether on the Republican side of the aisle or from the Democratic Members on both committees. But if there is one shining moment that stands out for me, it would be Senator Chambliss's leadership in the Gang of 6 during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis. At a time when it was far easier to stand back, point fingers, and fix blame, Senator Chambliss, along with Senator Mark Warner, led the way in producing a framework to provide a bipartisan, comprehensive, and balanced way to put our Nation on a stable fiscal path. The fact that our national debt has grown from $16 trillion to $18 trillion since then makes it all the more imperative that we continue the effort, with the leadership that was shown by Senator Chambliss and that he so courageously helped to start. The fact that this dedicated and wise leader cited Washington gridlock and partisan posturing as the driving force in his decision to retire from the Senate should give us all cause to reflect. Senator Saxby Chambliss has always been a voice of reason. No matter how bitter the debate, he has always engaged in thoughtful discussions that result in solutions. As he returns to private life, his advice will continue to be sought after and I hope heeded. His knowledge and insight will still be valued, and the example of decency and civility he has set should guide us all. I know his beloved wife, his children, and his grandchildren will be happy to have more of Senator Chambliss's time, but for those of us who have been privileged to serve with him in the Senate, his decision to retire is a great loss. The people of Georgia, the people of America, and those of us who have been privileged to serve as Saxby Chambliss's colleagues are grateful for his service. I wish him all the best in the years to come, both on and off the golf course. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last week the Senate passed the National Women's History Museum Commission Act, a bill that I authored with the dean of the Democratic women Senators, Senator Mikulski of Maryland. It passed finally as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Our legislation will create a commission to evaluate and plan the establishment of a museum dedicated to women's history right here in our Nation's Capital. I know the Presiding Officer shares my view that this is long overdue. I am in fact pleased to have had all of the women Senators as cosponsors of this bill, and I am thankful for the support of many of our other colleagues as well. Senator Mikulski has been a terrific co- leader, and I thank her for her leadership. A women's history museum is long overdue in Washington, DC. Think of it. We actually have a museum dedicated to honoring buildings. We have museums along the mall that commemorate various aspects of our history. We have the Air and Space Museum. There is a privately run Spy Museum. There is the Newseum, which honors journalism. There is a museum that honors Native Americans. Americans from all over this country can come to Washington and learn about our history and the contributions of the people who have made our Nation the greatest country in the world. Despite the plethora of museums, however, there has been no museum dedicated to the women who have helped to shape our Nation's history. The legislation that was finally approved last week calls for a commission to fund its own costs, and it would be paid for entirely with private funds at no cost to American taxpayers. This commission would put forth a plan for establishing a museum on women's history so that people who are coming to Washington can learn about the enormous contributions of women to our Nation's history. Indeed, American women have made invaluable contributions to our country across such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. A museum dedicated to women's history will help ensure that future generations understand what it is we owe to the many American women who have helped to build, sustain, and advance our society. Such a museum will share the stories of pioneering women such as abolitionist Harriet Tubman, the founder of the Girl Scouts, Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and my personal inspiration, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. I first introduced legislation to establish a museum for women's history in 2003. Early the following year, the Senate unanimously approved my bill. Unfortunately, that legislation was not taken up by the House and died. In 2005, the Senate again approved the legislation, but it too stalled in the House. With the passage finally of this commission bill, the effort to establish a museum for women's history in our Nation's Capital takes a positive step forward. This bill will convene a talented, diverse, and skilled panel of historians, educators, museum administrators, and other experts with experience in women's history to make recommendations for the creation and the sustainment of such a museum. It is important to emphasize that this museum will portray all aspects of women's contributions to our history, without partisanship or bias. The only political statement we will be making is to correct the longstanding omission of the role of women in America's history. I also recognize and thank Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski for their careful consideration of our bill by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which unanimously approved it last month. Telling the history of the contributions of American women matters, and this bill takes a long overdue first step toward recognizing and honoring those who have shaped our shared American heritage. I look forward to the day when young girls and young boys visiting Washington will be able to visit a women's history museum to learn more about the remarkable contributions of American women to our Nation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the fiscal year 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act that is currently before the Senate. For the last year, members of the Appropriations Committee have worked hard to develop bipartisan bills that establish priorities and responsibly fund the government. While I would have much preferred each of these bills to have been brought to the floor individually so they could be debated and amended, passage of this compromise legislation to keep government open and provide vital services to Americans who depend on them is essential. While the legislation funds nearly all government operations, programs, and agencies through the remainder of the fiscal year, notably, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security only through February 27, 2015, giving Congress time to thoughtfully respond to the President's unilateral action on immigration. While I supported the bipartisan legislation to reform our immigration laws that passed the Senate last year, I believe President Obama's recent Executive action on immigration circumvents Congress and undermines the separation of powers in our Constitution. This bill gives Congress time to formulate an appropriate response. In addition to the regular funding contained in this bill, the legislation also provides more than $5 billion in emergency funding to address the Ebola crisis at home and abroad. The scope and urgency of this crisis require continued attention, and this funding will build on the important initial investment for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services that Congress provided in September. I want to highlight the important work that Chairman Murray and I have accomplished as the leaders on the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee on Appropriations. Over this past year, Senator Murray and I worked together to craft a bipartisan bill that includes input from Members on both sides of the aisle and provides the necessary resources to meet our nation's transportation and housing needs. Every Member of Congress has unmet transportation and housing needs in his or her home State, from crumbling roads and bridges to a growing population of low income families, elderly, and disabled individuals in need of housing assistance. There are a number of key programs that I would like to highlight. With regard to transportation infrastructure, we secured funding to address the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail, strengthening three components: prevention, mitigation, and response. These safety measures will help to prevent disasters like the horrific derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last year--so very close to the Maine border. We also provide $500 million for the TIGER program, an effective initiative that helps advance transportation infrastructure projects. We all have seen firsthand how TIGER projects create jobs and support economic growth in our home States. In fact in Maine this highly competitive program has supported more than $90 million in funding for roads, bridges, ports, and rail projects. Turning to air travel, the aviation investments included in the bill will continue to modernize our Nation's air traffic system and keep rural communities connected to the transportation network. These investments are creating safer skies and a more efficient airspace to move the flying public. Also included in the bill are provisions I authored, which were adopted by the Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan vote of 21 to 9, to respond to potential safety concerns related to DOT regulations governing truck drivers. As a result of unintended consequences of these regulations, more trucks have been forced on our Nation's roads during the most congested morning hours--when commuters are traveling to work and children are traveling to school. The bill provides temporary relief until the DOT Secretary conducts a comprehensive study on the impacts of these unanticipated outcomes. In addition to these transportation programs, our bill provides sufficient funding to keep pace with the rising cost of housing programs for our most vulnerable families. More than four million families will continue to receive critical rental assistance for housing. Without it, many of these families would otherwise become homeless. The bill reflects our strong commitment to reduce homelessness and includes more than $2 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants. Since 2010, we have reduced overall chronic homelessness by 21 percent and veterans' homelessness by 33 percent. This program works. That is why we build on these successes and provide an additional 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers to serve our Nation's veterans. While we continue to help families in need, we also recognize the struggles facing our local communities. Boosting local economies is critical to job creation and helping families obtain financial security. Our bill supports these local development efforts by providing $3 billion for the Community Development Block Grants program. This is an extremely important program for States and communities because it allows them to tailor the Federal funds to support local economic and job creation projects. Other provisions of the bill make equally important investments in our national security, energy infrastructure, veterans, and health and human services. For our military and our national security, I particularly appreciate that the bill fully funds the Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 and Zumwalt- class DDG-1000 destroyers. The destroyers are known as the real workhorses of the fleet and are critical to maintaining the robust forward naval presence our nation requires especially in a time of increasing threats to our security. The continued support of the destroyer programs is also a strong testament to the hard work and dedication of the men and women at Bath Iron Works in Maine. Bath-built truly is best built. The bill also includes funding for the procurement of 38 F-35s and for four additional aircraft. The F-35 is vital to maintaining air superiority, and components of the aircraft are built by skilled workers at Pratt & Whitney in North Berwick, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems in Saco, Hunting Dearborn, Inc. in Fryeburg, and Fairchild Semiconductor in South Portland. Neither the bill, nor the report, recommends an unnecessary study of an extra engine for the F-35 fighter, which would have wasted billions of dollars. Turning to our Nation's public shipyards, I am pleased that this bill funds our Navy's facility maintenance and modernization efforts, including projects at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. The agreement contains language I secured that ensures the capital investment for the Navy's four public shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is funded at the level required by law. For the men and women serving in uniform all over the world, the bill also rightly rejects many of the President's proposals that would have imposed burdens on many servicemembers and their families. For our Veterans, I am pleased that this bill provides funding for the highly successful Access Received Closer to Home program, or ARCH, which provides critical care to our veterans living in rural areas, including those living in Northern Maine. The ARCH pilot program provides VA-covered health care services through non-VA providers and has been crucial to increasing access to care for rural Maine veterans. The funding bill also provides additional resources to implement the reforms included in the recently enacted Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act. We must increase our investment in biomedical research, and this bill provides $72 million in new funding for Alzheimer's Disease research, treatment, and caregiver programs. This important step takes us closer toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and eventually reaching the level of $2 billion a year in federal investment. This is the amount that the chairman of the Alzheimer's Advisory Council has said will be necessary if we are to reach our goal of having a way to prevent or effectively treat Alzheimer's Disease by 2025. At a time when Alzheimer's is costing our Nation $214 billion a year, including $150 billion in costs to Medicare and Medicaid, we are spending less than $600 million a year on Alzheimer's research. While this bill does take a step forward, clearly we need to do more given the tremendous human and economic toll this devastating disease takes on our Nation. In addition, this funding bill makes important investments in agricultural research and extension activities, from potatoes to wild blueberries to aquaculture and forest products, while maintaining a commitment to nutrition and food security. The agreement finally allows all fresh vegetables, including the fresh, white potato, to be included in the WIC program while USDA carries out an evaluation of the nutrient value of all vegetables, helping to ensure that any long-term policy is transparent and reflects the latest science. This bill also makes important commitments to our energy infrastructure and provides robust funding for the Department of Energy wind program. This program funds the offshore wind demonstration projects, including the R&D project being carried out by the University of Maine. Federal seed money is helping overcome barriers to the development and implementation of new and innovative technologies, such as deepwater offshore wind, which can position the U.S. as a global leader in innovative clean energy. To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for those living in northern, rural States like Maine, funding is provided in this bill for the Weatherization program. This program plays an important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income families and seniors. Moreover, the funding included for LIHEAP will help ensure that many of our most vulnerable families and seniors do not have to choose between paying for heat and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine. Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller states and regions is another vital piece of our National infrastructure. This bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of Army Corps projects at smaller harbors, which are the economic lifeblood for many rural communities, a fact not fully accounted for under the Corps' budget metrics, which tend to favor larger ports. The bill also continues to support our nation's fisheries, which are so important to the economies of our coastal communities, particularly in Maine. From funding for annual stock assessments, surveys and monitoring, and cooperative research, the bill supports key State and Federal partnerships. It provides funding to ensure fisheries data collection accurately reflects stock sustainability and funding for NOAA to invest in the science and research necessary to sustainably manage our fisheries in a way that continues to support our fishing fleets. Finally, I am pleased to see that the bill includes full funding for the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs that are so important in Maine, and for which Senator King and I both advocated. As we continue to deal with the recent job losses at paper mills in Maine, this assistance to displaced workers is extremely important. Completing action on this bill will keep government open and provide essential services to Americans who depend on them. While there are aspects of this compromise legislation that should have been subject to debate and amendment in an open process by the full Senate, including provisions that affect significantly multi-employer pensions and our campaign finance laws, we simply cannot allow a government shutdown. For that reason, I will be voting for this compromise legislation, and I urge my colleagues do so as well.