Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the ongoing debate on unemployment compensation shines a spotlight on the underlying problem; that is, extremely sluggish job growth in our still-lagging economy. Putting people to work is my number one goal. As American families continue to struggle to get the jobs they need at the wages they deserve, it is more important than ever for Members on both sides of the aisle to come together on legislation to promote economic growth and job creation. Today, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague Mr. Casey to discuss our legislation to do exactly that: the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act, which we introduced last year. Our bipartisan legislation focuses on areas of consensus that both parties can embrace to rekindle opportunity by helping small employers start up or grow and create or add good-paying jobs. It is often said that small businesses are our Nation's job creators, and the data bear that out. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, small businesses generated 65 percent of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2009. Together, America's small businesses employ nearly half of our Nation's workers and generate half of our Nation's GDP. Even the smallest employers have a huge impact on our economy; 18 percent of all private-sector employees work for businesses with fewer than 20 workers. Senator Casey and I recognize that employers cannot grow and add jobs unless they have the money to invest in building and expanding their businesses. That is why our bill focuses on making it easier for them to plan their capital investments and aims to reduce the burden and uncertainty of taxation, all in the name of creating jobs. Let me explain a few of the provisions of our bill. First, let me start by stating the obvious: Starting a new business that can hire workers costs money. Our bill eases the tax burden on new employers by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. There are two other provisions in our bill that affect employers both large and small that we propose to extend: first, the so-called bonus depreciation, and second, the 15-year depreciation for improvements to restaurants and retail facilities. Unfortunately, these important provisions were allowed to expire at the end of last year, causing great uncertainty and thus discouraging investment and the creation of jobs. Just think about this: The law has reverted to a provision that says that a restaurant has to depreciate its renovations over 39 years. Can you imagine a restaurant waiting to renovate only once every 39 years because it is going to take that long to write off, to depreciate the cost? The 15-year depreciation schedule for improvements is far more realistic. Our bill also provides certainty for small employers who use section 179 of the tax code. That is the small business expensing provision. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, which has endorsed our bill, show that the constant changes in the tax code are among the top concerns of small business owners. Indeed, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and I have both found in talking to smaller employers in our States that they are yearning for some certainty in tax policy. They simply cannot deal with a tax code where one year the deduction is at one level, and the very next year it is uncertain whether Congress is going to renew the provision or let it expire. The level of expensing allowed under section 179 has been unpredictable from year to year, and has changed four times in the past 7 years. This uncertainty makes it difficult or even impossible for small employers to take full advantage of this tax incentive in their long-term investment planning. Our bill would fix this problem by making the maximum expensing allowable under this section permanent at $250,000 and indexing it for inflation. We also expand the ability of small employers to use simplified methods of accounting. Let me give a real-life example of what the small business expensing and the bonus depreciation provisions can mean. Last year I spoke with Rob Tod, the founder of Allagash Brewing Company, which is based in Portland, ME. Allagash makes some of the best craft beer in the country. In fact, Maine is known for its craft beers. Well, Rob's operation started out as a one-man show in 1995. In the 19 years since, it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and distributes craft beer throughout the United States. Rob noted to me that his company's ability to expand was fueled in part by bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing. New to the craft beer business, Rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable terms, but these cost recovery provisions allowed him to pay less in taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his business. Those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus creating jobs. Just think about that. What a difference these provisions made to this company, which has gone from a one-man operation to employing 65 people. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of Allagash's investment on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, the increased inventory, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew additional beer. We are all too familiar with the litany of polls showing how little faith the American people have in their elected leaders and how much they want us to work together to solve our Nation's problems. I have been privileged to work with Senator Casey to do exactly that. The legislation that we have introduced is neither a Republican nor a Democratic proposal. It is, instead, a bipartisan plan to help spur America's economy, to assist our small employers, and, most of all, to create good-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill. I would ask our leadership to bring this legislation to restore economic growth and job opportunity to the Senate floor for action as soon as possible. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania for his remarks.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his remarks. I think it is obvious that both of us have reached out to employers in our States and asked them what would make a difference. What would allow you to create new jobs, preserve the ones you have, and pay your workers more? To a person, they identified provisions in the Tax Code, the uncertainty that occurs when they expire, the difficulty to plan and to hire new workers when you do not know what the Tax Code is going to be. That formed the basis for our bipartisan bill. We listened to what employers were telling us. I hope more of our colleagues will help us bring this bill to the Senate floor. Every day that I am talking to an employer in Maine, I am asked: Are the provisions that expired at the end of last year going to be renewed? Will they be retroactive? Can we count on them? They put their hiring plans on hold until we give them the certainty that they deserve. So, again, it has been a great honor to work with my colleague. I do urge our leaders to bring this important bill to the Senate floor. Madam President, I do have another statement that I would like to give seeing no one seeking the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the world's best athletes have come together in Sochi, Russia, for the 22nd Winter Olympic Games. Among them is Russell Currier, from the small northern Maine town of Stockholm. It is in Aroostook County. It is very near Caribou where I grew up. I rise today to celebrate the determination, hard work, and community spirit that enables Russell Currier to represent our great country in the Olympic Games. Russell competes in the biathlon, the demanding and increasingly popular sport that combines cross-country skiing with sharpshooting. He secured his place on America's team by winning three out of four qualifying races in January at the U.S. biathlon Olympic trials. But Russell's snow-covered trail to Russia began long before that. Fourteen years ago, as a seventh grader, he joined the local Nordic skiing program. A former coach described him as a quiet youngster with no particular interest in the sport. That quickly changed. The next year, Russell won a county-wide middle school championship. The year after that, he won third place at the junior nationals. Caring coaches and encouraging teammates lit a fire in him that burns so brightly today. On Russell's personal profile on the U.S. Olympic Team Web site, he wrote that his favorite quote is, ``Less talking, more doing.'' He has embraced that motto with all of his strength, and his perseverance has turned his Olympic dream into a goal he has achieved. I have a particular rooting interest in Russell's success. He and his parents, Debbie and Chris, are graduates of Caribou High School, as am I. Debbie and I grew up spending summers at Madawaska Lake at camps that were very near each other, and we spent endless summers playing together. I have known this wonderful family for many years, and I am thrilled for them. While the world watches the Winter Olympics, the entire population of Aroostook County and indeed of all of Maine will be riveted to the biathlon competition. As the name suggests, the town of Stockholm, ME, was settled by Swedish immigrants. When the first 21 families came to Aroostook County in the 1870s, they brought with them an unsurpassed work ethic, a strong sense of community, and a love of skiing. In fact, the entire ski industry of Maine, both Nordic and alpine, can be traced to these hardy, outdoors-loving newcomers. Nearly a century and a half later, the work ethic and the love of skiing remains strong, and the sense of community is more powerful than ever. When Russell won his place on the U.S. team, friends and neighbors held a fundraiser, a spaghetti dinner at Caribou High School, serving up more than 300 spaghetti dinners so Russell's parents, Debbie and Chris, could make the long and expensive trip to Russia to cheer on their son. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article the local newspaper, the Aroostook Republican, published on the community's support behind the Currier family.

Ms. COLLINS. Russell's dedication and his community spirit have a strong ally in this remarkable story, the Maine Winter Sports Center. The center was founded in 1999, with the purpose of rekindling Aroostook County's skiing heritage, spurring economic development in that rural region, bringing families together in wholesome recreation, and countering the sedentary lifestyle that leads to so many health problems among our greater population. The Center's world-class facilities in Fort Kent and Presque Isle, ME, have hosted national and international cross-country and biathlon competitions. For the 2006 and 2010 Olympics, 13 Members of the U.S. biathlon team trained at the Maine Winter Sports Center, but Russell is the first homegrown Olympian to come up entirely through the center's program. Russell Currier demonstrates that growing up in a community that works hard and works together can be such a great advantage when combined with individual desire, determination, and skill. The success Russell has achieved in realizing his Olympic dream and the support along the way that he has received are truly inspiring. I am so proud of Russell and all who helped him achieve his dream. I wish him and his teammates all the best. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women who have defended America with their service and to bring to the attention of my colleagues some of the many outstanding ways in which citizens of Maine are honoring those who served and, in some cases, gave their lives for our country. U.S. Marine Corps Maj. David Cote, a Maine native, recently established the Summit Project, a living tribute to remember and memorialize each Maine servicemember who has been killed in the line of duty since September 11, 2001. As part of this living memorial, Major Cote has traveled across Maine to visit with the families of the fallen. He has asked each family to search for a stone to represent their loved one who gave his or her life so we could live in peace. From backyards and fishing holes to national forests and lakeside camps, these stones have been hand-picked from across Maine to represent each fallen hero. Beginning this Memorial Day and annually thereafter, Major Cote will lead commemorative tribute hikes, in which volunteers will each carry a stone in honor of a specific fallen servicemember. During these hiking expeditions, the memories of the fallen, recounted by widows, mothers, fathers, and friends, will be shared with the hikers embarking on their journey to the summit of mountains in Maine. The Summit Project was launched to help the families who have suffered such painful losses truly heal, and to ensure that the experiences of these heroes inspire a new generation of patriots. It will honor the heroism and patriotism of those who gave all for our country since 9/11 and will ensure that their stories and sacrifices are added to Maine's proud history of duty to country. In another unique effort, which started 23 years ago in Maine and which has now spread to include the entire United States and beyond, thousands of volunteers each year have the opportunity to recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by our brave servicemembers by participating in Wreaths Across America. This annual effort, which provides holiday wreaths to mark the graves of fallen servicemembers, was begun by Morrill and Karen Worcester of Harrington, ME. On December 14, 2013, approximately one dozen tractor-trailer trucks laden with 143,000 ``remembrance wreaths,'' all proudly made in Maine, were escorted to Arlington National Cemetery by the Maine State Police and Patriot Guard Riders. Numerous volunteers spent the morning placing the wreaths on the headstones of deceased veterans and reflecting on their courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. All told, Wreaths Across America shipped more than 470,000 wreaths to adorn veterans' graves in all 50 States and around the world. The mission of Wreaths Across America is to ``Remember, Honor, Teach.'' In addition to honoring America's fallen, the group seeks to promote awareness of the sacrifices made by servicemembers through various veterans' events and wreath laying ceremonies at State Houses and the U.S. Capitol. These solemn ceremonies allow us the opportunity to pause and remember the many men and women who have died to preserve our freedoms, and they encourage us to instruct younger generations so that those sacrifices are never forgotten. For those veterans who have returned home from war, our Nation must ensure that we facilitate their transition to life as civilians. In many cases, these veterans have suffered severe injuries and need further assistance. The third effort I highlight today focuses on one veteran's effort to encourage other veterans. U.S. Army SSG Travis Mills was on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan when he was critically injured by an improvised explosive device while on patrol. As a result, Travis lost portions of both legs and both arms. He is one of just five quadruple-amputees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to survive their injuries. While Travis recovered at Walter Reed Medical Center, he dreamed of providing a camp in Maine as a recreation center for disabled veterans and their families--an affordable place which would provide much-needed quality time for families to spend together. Through the assistance of Dean Lachance, executive director of the Bread of Life Ministries, Travis was connected with Joel and Crista Lavenson, co-owners of Kennebec Camp's Maine Golf & Tennis Academy. Together, they transformed their vision into a reality, creating the National Veterans Family Center, where wounded veterans and their families can enjoy much needed rest and relaxation while participating in outdoor activities that include fishing, boating, and archery. We must never forget the sacrifices that have been made by all generations of veterans, as well as those who still serve. I am proud that Maine has a long history of great patriots who have died in the service of their country. Low on ammunition and men, Joshua Chamberlain courageously led the charge at Little Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg. MSG Gary Gordon demonstrated great bravery during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1992, which led to his receiving the Medal of Honor. The brave Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom are no longer with us, but through efforts like The Summit Project, Wreaths Across America, and the National Veterans Family Center, we can honor their sacrifice and ensure that their legacies live on.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Retirement Security Act of 2014, legislation I am sponsoring with my good friend, the senior Senator from Florida and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Our bill would encourage small employers to offer retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law. I thought it was interesting last night that the President, in his speech, highlighted what is a growing problem in this country; that is, that people who have not saved sufficiently to have a comfortable retirement. The legislation we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work together on the Special Committee on Aging. Last fall, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security, where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. That is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to shine a light on this problem. Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security--in Maine, the number is one in three. Four in ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income. Yet Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills--certainly a ``comfortable retirement'' is out of the question. 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, up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago. They are right to be concerned: projections published in 2010 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that nearly half of ``Early Boomers''--those between the ages of 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including uninsured health care costs. There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the severity of the recent financial crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the fact that Americans are simply living far longer than they did in the past. The shift from employer-based ``defined benefit'' plans-- pensions--to ``defined contribution'' plans like 401(k)s, also has played a role. Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a recent GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons plans are not more widely offered by small businesses. Chairman Nelson and I believe that making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the bill we are introducing today focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their retirement. Let me describe some of the provisions of our bill: First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans (MEPs) to jointly offer retirement programs to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps to lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out, under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee. Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax benefits. These benefits are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations. Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, which creates savings that can be passed on to employers. As ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors during what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, elder poverty also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save, and to save more, may help to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that already are projected to be unsustainable. The Retirement Security Act of 2014 encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount on up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent. I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match. I wish to emphasize that the new retirement plan options for businesses included in our bill are just that--options. No business, large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under the Retirement Security Act of 2014. Some firms, facing an uncertain economy and rising health care costs, may choose to spend their limited resources elsewhere. Accordingly, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet this credit cannot be claimed on a Form 1040EZ, which is used by individuals with income under $100,000. A 2013 survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, was even aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040EZ. In light of the positive effects this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2014. I am very pleased we have a number of groups that have endorsed our bill. I expect to have more to say about that next week. But at this point I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the hearing that Chairman Nelson and I held in the Special Committee on Aging that focused the spotlight on this problem. We simply have too many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement, and that can and should change. Thank you.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Retirement Security Act of 2014, legislation I am sponsoring with my good friend, the senior Senator from Florida and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Our bill would encourage small employers to offer retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law. I thought it was interesting last night that the President, in his speech, highlighted what is a growing problem in this country; that is, that people who have not saved sufficiently to have a comfortable retirement. The legislation we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work together on the Special Committee on Aging. Last fall, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security, where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. That is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to shine a light on this problem. Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security--in Maine, the number is one in three. Four in ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income. Yet Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills--certainly a ``comfortable retirement'' is out of the question. 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, up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago. They are right to be concerned: projections published in 2010 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that nearly half of ``Early Boomers''--those between the ages of 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including uninsured health care costs. There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the severity of the recent financial crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the fact that Americans are simply living far longer than they did in the past. The shift from employer-based ``defined benefit'' plans-- pensions--to ``defined contribution'' plans like 401(k)s, also has played a role. Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a recent GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons plans are not more widely offered by small businesses. Chairman Nelson and I believe that making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the bill we are introducing today focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their retirement. Let me describe some of the provisions of our bill: First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans (MEPs) to jointly offer retirement programs to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps to lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out, under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee. Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax benefits. These benefits are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations. Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, which creates savings that can be passed on to employers. As ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors during what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, elder poverty also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save, and to save more, may help to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that already are projected to be unsustainable. The Retirement Security Act of 2014 encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount on up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent. I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match. I wish to emphasize that the new retirement plan options for businesses included in our bill are just that--options. No business, large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under the Retirement Security Act of 2014. Some firms, facing an uncertain economy and rising health care costs, may choose to spend their limited resources elsewhere. Accordingly, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet this credit cannot be claimed on a Form 1040EZ, which is used by individuals with income under $100,000. A 2013 survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, was even aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040EZ. In light of the positive effects this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2014. I am very pleased we have a number of groups that have endorsed our bill. I expect to have more to say about that next week. But at this point I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the hearing that Chairman Nelson and I held in the Special Committee on Aging that focused the spotlight on this problem. We simply have too many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement, and that can and should change. Thank you.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 50 years ago today, on January 27, 1964, Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine announced her candidacy for President of the United States. The following July, at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, the great lady from Maine became the first woman in history to ever have her name entered into nomination by a major party for our Nation's highest office. I rise to commemorate this remarkable leader and this significant milestone in our history. At the time of her announcement, Senator Smith was in her 24th year in Congress and was an established groundbreaker. She was the first woman elected to both the House and the Senate and the first to serve on the Armed Services Committee. She was the woman who gave other women the opportunity to pursue careers in the military. Due to her early and energetic support for the space program, she has been called the woman who put a man on the Moon. Her courageous ``Declaration of Conscience'' delivered in the Senate on June 1, 1950, turned the tide against McCarthyism and reminded all Americans of our Nation's core values of free expression and independent thought. Senator Smith made her Presidential announcement in a speech at the Women's National Press Club in Washington. Yes, Mr. President, there was a separate press club for women in those days. It was an important address in which she described both the progress that America had made against bigotry, prejudice, extremism, and hatred as well as the challenges that remained, but Margaret Chase Smith saved the best for last. After telling her audience of the flood of letters she had been receiving from all over the country urging her to run for President, Senator Smith described the reasons offered by her supporters, such as she had more experience at the national level than any of the other confirmed candidates, she had the stature that could break the barrier against women being seriously considered for President, she would provide a moderate, middle-of-the-road option in an election that was shaping up as one between a very conservative and very liberal philosophy. Then she described the reasons she should not run: The widespread contention that the Presidency was a man's job, her lack of financial resources, and a professional political organization, and the fact that the odds were stacked heavily against her. Senator Smith said she found the reasons offered against running far more compelling than those in favor. So imagine the surprise of her audience when she said that because of those very reasons, she had decided to enter the New Hampshire primary. Senator Smith's campaign was off and running, and what a campaign it was. Senator Smith accepted no money from anyone. All contributions-- whether they were large or small--were returned to sender. She took to the campaign trail only when the Senate was not in session in order to preserve her perfect record of never missing a rollcall vote and to keep the pledge of dedicated service she had made to the people of Maine. Her campaign motto was: ``There is nothing more effective than a handshake and a little conversation.'' As a consequence of her self-imposed financial and time restraints, Senator Smith did not win a primary. But in the one primary where she was able to campaign somewhat extensively--the State of Illinois for all of two weekends and a total expenditure of $85--she finished a strong second in a field of six. She lost only to the eventual nominee, Barry Goldwater. With 25 percent of the vote, she came in far ahead of such well-known candidates as Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, and Henry Cabot Lodge. It is intriguing to think what she might have done with a more traditional campaign. At the Republican National Convention in San Francisco that year, Senator Smith's name was entered into nomination by Senator George Aiken of Vermont. He told the delegates that Senator Smith's integrity, ability, common sense, and courage made her ``the best qualified person you ever voted for.'' On the first ballot, 27 delegates did vote for Margaret Chase Smith from the great State of Maine. Unlike the other candidates, Senator Smith did not release her delegates to the landslide victor, Senator Goldwater. That was not done out of spite. Indeed, she campaigned earnestly for him in the general election. It was done because she wanted to demonstrate--she wanted the historical record to show that a woman had been given serious consideration for the Presidency of this country. Many words have been spoken over many years in attempts to describe the character of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Perhaps the best were offered by the candidate herself on that campaign trail a half century ago. She said: I have few illusions and no money, but I'm staying for the finish. When people keep telling you, you can't do a thing, you kind of like to try. On this milestone anniversary, I am honored to celebrate an extraordinary woman from Maine who tried and failed in one endeavor but in doing so inspired generations of Americans with her strength and determination and demonstrated, as she once said, that a woman's place is ``everywhere.'' Today, the Senate has a record 20 women Senators. In a sense each of us owes a debt to Senator Margaret Chase Smith, but none more so than I. You see, I first met Senator Smith when I was a high school senior from Caribou, ME. I was selected as one of two students to come to Washington as part of the Senate Youth Program sponsored by the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, a program that still exists today. I remember how excited I was to see Senator Smith and her graciousness in inviting me into her office and spending nearly 2 hours with me. As the Presiding Officer can appreciate, for any of us to spend 2 hours with anyone is remarkable nowadays, but Margaret Chase Smith carved out that time to talk with me. Recently her library sent me copies of her appointment book for that day so I could see that my appointment with her was listed and preserved for all time. She talked to me not about what it was like being the only woman in the Senate, she talked to me instead about her service on the Armed Services Committee, about what we could do to create more jobs in this country and, most of all, about her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' in which she stood up against the smear campaign and the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Through that speech she taught us all to stand tall for what we believe in and to speak out against injustice and bigotry. I remember when I left her office I was so thrilled and inspired. I remember thinking women could do anything. This was back in 1971, and although I came from a family with wonderful role models in both my mother and my father, who were so active in their community and in their State, there were a lot of other messages about that time that raised doubts in the minds of growing girls about whether we could, in fact, be whatever we wanted to be. So that message that I learned from Margaret Chase Smith was so important in shaping who I am today. Although I did not know it at the time at all, that meeting with Margaret Chase Smith shortly after I had turned 18 as a high school senior taught me I could achieve my dream, and in many ways it was the first step on a journey that led me to run for her seat in the Senate 25 years later. Today I am so proud that the desk at which I stand--the desk that I use and is assigned to me on the Senate floor--once belonged to the legendary Senator from Maine Margaret Chase Smith. What a wonderful role model she was to me the entire time I was growing up when she was representing the State of Maine with such integrity, skill, and courage. I feel so fortunate to hold her seat in the Senate. So today it gives me great pride as well as great pleasure to inform my colleagues that this is the 50th anniversary of the day that Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine became the first woman in history to announce her candidacy for President of the United States and later that year to be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination by a major political party. Let us celebrate this day as we also celebrate the presence of a record number of women in the Senate. I believe that would have made Senator Smith very proud. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I first want to congratulate Chairwoman Mikulski and Vice Chairman Shelby for their leadership in bringing these appropriations bills to the floor for final consideration. While I would have preferred these bills to have been brought to the floor individually so that they could be amended, this nevertheless is a noteworthy achievement. The 2-year budget agreement negotiated by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan provided the framework for the bill we are considering today, allowing the Appropriations Committees to begin our work of developing bills that will responsibly fund the government. Since passage of the budget agreement, the Appropriations Committee members have worked tirelessly to craft a true compromise. As the ranking member for the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I worked with Chairman Murray to negotiate a bipartisan Transportation and Housing bill. While this bill makes prudent spending reductions--it is $3.2 billion below the original Senate bill and nearly $1 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level--it continues to invest in important transportation and housing programs. I would like to mention a few highlights: First, the TIGER program, which supports transportation infrastructure and economic development in our local communities, is funded at $600 million. Given the current state of our Nation's highways and bridges with so many being structurally deficient, we included additional resources to help eliminate some of the backlog of vital construction projects. Second, while the overall funding level for the FAA is reduced by $167 million from the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, we worked to provide sufficient funding to ensure air traffic controller and safety inspector staffing losses are made whole. The bill also fully funds the Contract Tower program to prevent administration officials from arbitrarily closing towers as they attempted to do last year. Further, the bill includes program reforms for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which will streamline program requirements, increase oversight, and reduce costs to the taxpayer. I am proud that the THUD bill strikes the right balance between fiscal responsibility and meeting our Nation's housing and infrastructure needs. The other divisions of the bill are equally important--from national security, to energy, to health and human services--and I would also like to acknowledge the work of the other subcommittee chairs and ranking members in completing action on their bills. For our military and our Nation's security, I particularly appreciate that this bill includes $100 million for the procurement of the fifth DDG-51 from Bath Iron Works, which Senator King and I advocated. This funding will allow the Navy to send a tenth DDG-51 to sea that is capable of performing many roles and missions in support of our national defense. Not only will it add stability to the workforce at Bath Iron Works in Maine, but it also will result in significant savings for the taxpayers. The multiyear, 10-ship procurement will save approximately $1.5 billion--that is the equivalent of an extra destroyer at no cost. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cochran for this important funding. I am also grateful to see the $11.5 million in military construction funding that will go toward the consolidation of structural shops and improve the efficiency of operations at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. While the Department of Defense has delayed or cancelled $4.1 billion in military construction projects during the next five budget years, this project was accelerated to 2014 due to efforts by members of the Maine and New Hampshire delegations to increase investments to address long overdue modernization needs at PNSY. For our veterans, I am pleased this bill restores the full cost-of- living increase for disabled military retirees and for survivor benefits, rectifying provisions in the recently-passed budget agreement that unfairly singled out current retirees. Unfortunately, this will not protect all military retirees from a decreased cost-of-living adjustment on their pensions. We must continue to work on behalf of our retired servicemembers and their families to ensure that they receive the full benefits they have been promised and have earned by their service to this country. Congress should act quickly to pass legislation I have cosponsored that completely restores the COLA for all military retirees. This bill also provides several million dollars in additional funding for medical research, including for Alzheimer's Disease research, treatment, and caregiver programs. This is an important initial step toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and eventually reaching the level of $2 billion over five years, as recommended by the Alzheimer's Advisory Council. We must continue our efforts in 2015 to increase Alzheimer's research given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. We are spending $142 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid costs on caring for people with Alzheimer's. I also want to thank Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for addressing the needs of our Nation's farmers and growers, providing critical support for research, and making important nutrition and food security investments during difficult economic times. In particular, I am pleased that the agreement expects USDA to amend its arbitrary decision to exclude the fresh white potato, the only fresh vegetable or fruit to be excluded, from the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC program. Fresh white potatoes are a healthy, affordable, and delicious food choice, and it only makes common sense to include this nutritious vegetable in the WIC package. This bill also makes important commitments to our energy infrastructure. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander for recognizing the potential for creating jobs by providing robust funding for the Department of Energy wind program, which funds the offshore wind demonstration projects. 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 this promising clean energy field. To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for those living in northern, rural states such as 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 and training a skilled workforce. Moreover, for our most vulnerable families and seniors, the increased funding for LIHEAP will help ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine. LIHEAP continues to be an indispensable lifeline for many Americans during these challenging economic times and exceptionally cold winter. Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller States and regions is another vital piece of our national infrastructure. I am pleased this bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of Army Corps projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence harbors.'' Ports and harbors 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. In September 2012, the Commerce Department declared a disaster in the Northeast groundfish industry. A vital $75 million is included in this bill to help fishermen in Maine and in other areas of the country who have had their livelihoods affected by fisheries disasters in recent years. This funding could be used to provide both immediate economic relief to Maine and the region's struggling groundfish industry, and to make targeted investments that will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead. The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work. We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shut down in October. We simply must avoid another shutdown and put our Nation back on sound financial footing. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the compromises the Appropriations Committees worked so hard to achieve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill addressing an issue important to Maine veterans who served at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Gagetown. Veterans who served there may have suffered from adverse health impacts due to exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange, which was used at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, to establish a registry of U.S. veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and 2006 and have subsequently experienced health issues, which may have resulted from exposure to these chemicals. It also directs the VA to commission an independent study investigating any possible linkage between the spraying of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown and subsequent health problems among the American soldiers who served or trained there. The legislation I am offering with Senator King is similar to another bill that has been introduced by Congressman Mike Michaud in the House of Representatives. Protecting the health of those who have served our Nation is a solemn responsibility. I have heard from veterans in Maine about how they have suffered from diabetes, cancers, and respiratory illnesses. Many of these veterans fear their illnesses are linked to the use of Agent Orange in the 1960s. These veterans, however, have had difficulty in persuading the VA that their health problems are related to this chemical exposure. By requiring the VA to establish a registry of these veterans, we recognize these widespread concerns and provide veterans with a way to make their claims known to the VA and to identify commonalities among their shared experiences. It also provides the VA with the ability to reach out to veterans on this issue of critical importance. Last month, I personally raised this issue with the Canadian Minister of Defence. Many Canadian veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown voiced similar concerns with their government. He described how the Government of Canada found a way to appropriately compensate service members affected by the toxic chemicals used at Gagetown. Ultimately, the Canadian government approved one-time ex gratia payments of $20,000 for qualifying veterans who demonstrated that they were at CFB Gagetown during the days when the toxic agents were sprayed. A crucial provision in this legislation requires the VA to commission an independent study that investigates the connection between health problems and exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown. Previously, I requested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct an investigation into whether Maine veterans were exposed to toxic chemicals while training at CFB Gagetown. A significant deficiency with the CDC report, however, was that it relied solely on existing Canadian government studies on this subject rather than conducting interviews of those who trained there. Many Maine veterans feel strongly that they suffered negative consequences from exposure to Agent Orange while training at Gagetown. The United States Government should conduct its own independent study with interviews. This legislation keeps faith with our veterans by demonstrating that our government takes the allegations of exposure to Agent Orange seriously. The bill will help identify and bring together the shared experience of those who trained at CFB Gagetown. This bill will make it easier for the VA to conduct outreach on this issue pending any new developments. I look forward to working with Senator King and all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill addressing an issue important to Maine veterans who served at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Gagetown. Veterans who served there may have suffered from adverse health impacts due to exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange, which was used at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, to establish a registry of U.S. veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and 2006 and have subsequently experienced health issues, which may have resulted from exposure to these chemicals. It also directs the VA to commission an independent study investigating any possible linkage between the spraying of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown and subsequent health problems among the American soldiers who served or trained there. The legislation I am offering with Senator King is similar to another bill that has been introduced by Congressman Mike Michaud in the House of Representatives. Protecting the health of those who have served our Nation is a solemn responsibility. I have heard from veterans in Maine about how they have suffered from diabetes, cancers, and respiratory illnesses. Many of these veterans fear their illnesses are linked to the use of Agent Orange in the 1960s. These veterans, however, have had difficulty in persuading the VA that their health problems are related to this chemical exposure. By requiring the VA to establish a registry of these veterans, we recognize these widespread concerns and provide veterans with a way to make their claims known to the VA and to identify commonalities among their shared experiences. It also provides the VA with the ability to reach out to veterans on this issue of critical importance. Last month, I personally raised this issue with the Canadian Minister of Defence. Many Canadian veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown voiced similar concerns with their government. He described how the Government of Canada found a way to appropriately compensate service members affected by the toxic chemicals used at Gagetown. Ultimately, the Canadian government approved one-time ex gratia payments of $20,000 for qualifying veterans who demonstrated that they were at CFB Gagetown during the days when the toxic agents were sprayed. A crucial provision in this legislation requires the VA to commission an independent study that investigates the connection between health problems and exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown. Previously, I requested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct an investigation into whether Maine veterans were exposed to toxic chemicals while training at CFB Gagetown. A significant deficiency with the CDC report, however, was that it relied solely on existing Canadian government studies on this subject rather than conducting interviews of those who trained there. Many Maine veterans feel strongly that they suffered negative consequences from exposure to Agent Orange while training at Gagetown. The United States Government should conduct its own independent study with interviews. This legislation keeps faith with our veterans by demonstrating that our government takes the allegations of exposure to Agent Orange seriously. The bill will help identify and bring together the shared experience of those who trained at CFB Gagetown. This bill will make it easier for the VA to conduct outreach on this issue pending any new developments. I look forward to working with Senator King and all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement that is currently before the Senate. This budget agreement, while far from perfect, will help move our economy forward, create certainty that has been sorely lacking for far too long, and save some $23 billion over the next decade. It has been 4 years since the House and Senate have reached an agreement on a budget that sets priorities for Federal spending and revenues. While the 2- year budget agreement worked out between Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan is not what I would have written, it is a step in the right direction. It will prevent Congress from lurching from crisis to crisis, avoid most of the across-the-board, meat-ax cuts known as sequestration, and will allow the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, to do its job of developing bills to responsibly fund the government within agreed to limits. Over the last 9 months since sequestration went into effect, I have met with countless Mainers, including shipyard workers, medical researchers, educators, Border Patrol agents, small business owners affected by the delayed opening and shutdown of Acadia National Park, and nonprofit organizations providing services for the low-income and the elderly. All have shared stories of their personal experiences with how the indiscriminate cuts of sequestration have affected them, their families, and those whom they serve. The sequester has had a detrimental impact on Mainers and our country and is not the right approach to reducing our enormous debt. The $65 billion in sequestration relief provided by this agreement will help mitigate the effect on our economy moving forward and allow Congress to prioritize those programs that are most effective over those that are wasteful, duplicative, or simply no longer necessary. The agreement will spare the Department of Defense some of the devastating sequestration cuts that Pentagon officials testified could cripple military readiness, harm our national security, and affect thousands of defense-related jobs that are vital to our economy in Maine and in the United States. It also begins to address the harmful impact of indiscriminate cuts made to vital programs such as transportation, education, and biomedical research. It is critical that Congress continue to work to bring spending under control. Our national debt now stands at an almost incomprehensible $17.2 trillion. This sum, along with rising interest payments, is our legacy to future generations and simply must be responsibly addressed. This agreement will save $23 billion over the next 10 years and help prevent government shutdowns over the next 2 years. I am, however, deeply disappointed that this agreement includes a reduction in the annual cost of living increase for some current military retirees. We must honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women who served our country so that they can continue to have access to the benefits they worked so hard to earn and that were promised to them. The significant changes to military retirement included in this budget single out current retirees and change the rules for them, and that is not fair. In 2012, I was a member of the Armed Services Committee when we created the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission with the precise purpose of comprehensively examining this issue in a thorough way that protects current retirees and ensures that the military retirement system is offering the right incentives to recruit and retain the most qualified and experienced servicemembers at a time of budget constraints. I have raised my concerns with my colleagues about the military retirement provisions in this agreement and will work to ensure that this issue is addressed before it is set to take effect in January 2016. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee has already committed to reviewing this change at the start of next year. I intend to do everything I can, in conjunction with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, to identify a more reasonable approach to this problem that would provide the same level of savings while protecting current retirees. The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work. We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shutdown in October. That is why I worked so hard to forge a compromise that helped get Congress functioning again. We simply must avoid another shutdown and put our Nation back on a sound financial footing. In my judgment, this agreement takes the first steps on a responsible path forward.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who coauthored this legislation, for clarifying that it is not the intent of the bill's authors to require that existing contracts with not-for-profit student loan servicers be canceled and that such servicers will continue to be able to compete for additional Department of Education contracts in the future. Not- for-profit servicers provide students in Maine and across the country with important financial counseling services, and I am pleased to know that they will continue to be allowed to compete to perform this work under this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCaskill and Senator Manchin to introduce the Securing Job Corps Centers Act, a bill that seeks to address the Job Corps' recent management challenges. Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program administered by the Department of Labor, DOL, that helps at-risk young people ages 16 through 24 by giving them the tools they need to succeed. Job Corps has been training young adults for meaningful careers for nearly 50 years and is committed to offering its students a safe, drug-free environment where they can train and learn. Job Corps' mission is to attract eligible young people, teach them the skills they need to become employable and independent, and help them find meaningful jobs or further their education. This mission has been threatened, however, by the Department of Labor's mismanagement. Earlier this year, the DOL ordered a temporary suspension of new student enrollments as its way to address a significant Job Corps program shortfall of $61.5 million. This was in addition to the $39 million shortfall in the previous program year. The suspension of enrollments decimated the program, setting it back for years to come, which is especially upsetting considering Job Corps has compiled an impressive record over five decades in preparing at-risk youth for the workforce or higher education. According to DOL, several factors contributed to Job Corps' financial problems, but the most significant was unchecked growth in expenditures due to serious weaknesses in the financial management processes. I wrote to DOL officials for clarification, and they responded with the following: Job Corps lacked appropriate program monitoring tools and control protocols, including those to sufficiently analyze contractual spending trends. In turn, this led to inadequate spending projections for the Operations account. It is clear that the Department of Labor has mismanaged this program, and the students suffered the consequences. There are two Job Corps centers in Maine that do excellent work to help these young adults become productive members of society. The Penobscot Job Corps Academy and the Loring Job Corps Center have the capability to serve nearly 800 at-risk youth on a daily basis. These centers put these young men and women on a path to earning their high school diploma and to gaining the necessary skills to enter the workforce or the military or go on to college. However, the shortfall caused by DOL mismanagement forced these centers to furlough and lay off staff to reduce costs--jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of these centers and their important work. Studies have found Job Corps to be among the most effective of all federally supported programs that serve youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are disconnected from both school and work. Even in the face of unprecedented budget shortfalls and enrollment freezes, Job Corps has continued to produce impressive results--85 percent of graduates obtain a job, enroll in higher education, or enlist in the military. To ensure recent management challenges are addressed as transparently and effectively as possible, our bill would create an advisory board responsible for working with the DOL to develop policy and programmatic recommendations related to Job Corps' administration. The advisory panel will provide a series of reports directly to the U.S. Secretary of Labor and Congress on budget and financial management protocols, cost efficiencies, and maximizing the number of youth served. Our bill will also require earlier notifications of management decisions at DOL that could affect student enrollments. Job Corps' recent management challenges have had ripple effects throughout the communities served by Job Corps centers and continue to have an impact on center operations. The fact that every Job Corps center continues to operate at 21 to 25 percent below full capacity is the result of a management structure that forced operational decisions to be made in haste and without proper consideration of alternatives. An advisory board of experienced Job Corps operations experts can help the program and its new leadership to emerge from the crises of the last year and ensure that, in the future, Job Corps policy decisions are always guided by what is in the best interests of Job Corps students and communities. Job Corps' value remains clear. Studies suggest that leaving behind the youth served by this program could cost our states and our economy hundreds of thousands of dollars per youth. I urge my colleagues to support our bill to ensure that Job Corps returns to the operational efficiency that characterized its first 50 years and remains among the nation's most successful workforce programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCaskill and Senator Manchin to introduce the Securing Job Corps Centers Act, a bill that seeks to address the Job Corps' recent management challenges. Job Corps is an educational and vocational training program administered by the Department of Labor, DOL, that helps at-risk young people ages 16 through 24 by giving them the tools they need to succeed. Job Corps has been training young adults for meaningful careers for nearly 50 years and is committed to offering its students a safe, drug-free environment where they can train and learn. Job Corps' mission is to attract eligible young people, teach them the skills they need to become employable and independent, and help them find meaningful jobs or further their education. This mission has been threatened, however, by the Department of Labor's mismanagement. Earlier this year, the DOL ordered a temporary suspension of new student enrollments as its way to address a significant Job Corps program shortfall of $61.5 million. This was in addition to the $39 million shortfall in the previous program year. The suspension of enrollments decimated the program, setting it back for years to come, which is especially upsetting considering Job Corps has compiled an impressive record over five decades in preparing at-risk youth for the workforce or higher education. According to DOL, several factors contributed to Job Corps' financial problems, but the most significant was unchecked growth in expenditures due to serious weaknesses in the financial management processes. I wrote to DOL officials for clarification, and they responded with the following: Job Corps lacked appropriate program monitoring tools and control protocols, including those to sufficiently analyze contractual spending trends. In turn, this led to inadequate spending projections for the Operations account. It is clear that the Department of Labor has mismanaged this program, and the students suffered the consequences. There are two Job Corps centers in Maine that do excellent work to help these young adults become productive members of society. The Penobscot Job Corps Academy and the Loring Job Corps Center have the capability to serve nearly 800 at-risk youth on a daily basis. These centers put these young men and women on a path to earning their high school diploma and to gaining the necessary skills to enter the workforce or the military or go on to college. However, the shortfall caused by DOL mismanagement forced these centers to furlough and lay off staff to reduce costs--jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of these centers and their important work. Studies have found Job Corps to be among the most effective of all federally supported programs that serve youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are disconnected from both school and work. Even in the face of unprecedented budget shortfalls and enrollment freezes, Job Corps has continued to produce impressive results--85 percent of graduates obtain a job, enroll in higher education, or enlist in the military. To ensure recent management challenges are addressed as transparently and effectively as possible, our bill would create an advisory board responsible for working with the DOL to develop policy and programmatic recommendations related to Job Corps' administration. The advisory panel will provide a series of reports directly to the U.S. Secretary of Labor and Congress on budget and financial management protocols, cost efficiencies, and maximizing the number of youth served. Our bill will also require earlier notifications of management decisions at DOL that could affect student enrollments. Job Corps' recent management challenges have had ripple effects throughout the communities served by Job Corps centers and continue to have an impact on center operations. The fact that every Job Corps center continues to operate at 21 to 25 percent below full capacity is the result of a management structure that forced operational decisions to be made in haste and without proper consideration of alternatives. An advisory board of experienced Job Corps operations experts can help the program and its new leadership to emerge from the crises of the last year and ensure that, in the future, Job Corps policy decisions are always guided by what is in the best interests of Job Corps students and communities. Job Corps' value remains clear. Studies suggest that leaving behind the youth served by this program could cost our states and our economy hundreds of thousands of dollars per youth. I urge my colleagues to support our bill to ensure that Job Corps returns to the operational efficiency that characterized its first 50 years and remains among the nation's most successful workforce programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and to address significant challenges facing the Department of Defense. The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee includes necessary provisions to take care of our troops, such as a 1-percent pay raise and the maintenance of affordable health care fees to avoid a detrimental effect on military retirees and their families. I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for increasing authorizations for the shipbuilding budget, including an additional $100 million to support the procurement of a tenth DDG-51 destroyer under the current multiyear procurement contract. I am pleased that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve has also included this critical $100 million. This ship is needed in the fleet to maintain the robust forward presence our Nation requires to protect trade routes, keep the peace, and assist when tragedy strikes. When tensions flared in Syria, it was Navy destroyers that were positioned off the coast. Following the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, two U.S. Navy destroyers were among the first ships on station. Taking advantage of the opportunity to procure this ship will lock additional savings on a multiyear procurement that has already saved taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to procuring the ships individually. I am also pleased the Armed Services Committee incorporated many provisions I support to combat sexual assault, which is one of the greatest challenges faced by the Department of Defense for a decade. I first raised my concern about sexual assaults in the military with General George Casey in 2004. To say his response was disappointing would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had heeded the concern I raised then, this terrible problem would have been addressed much sooner, saving many individuals the trauma, pain, and injustice they endured. While I will address this issue at greater length during consideration of this bill, I want to highlight three of the most important changes included in the bill. First, the bill limits the authority of a convening authority to overturn or modify the findings of a court-martial in sexual assault cases. Second, the bill requires the military to provide an attorney dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults to provide legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the most. Third, a servicemember convicted of sexual assault would be discharged from the military. I also support the provisions in the bill to maintain the readiness of our military services by authorizing $1.8 billion to address readiness problems caused by fiscal year 2013 sequestration. This bill also directs the Pentagon to rein in unnecessary or wasteful spending while rejecting proposals that purport to save money but that actually cause more harm than good. Two important provisions require DOD to develop a plan to reduce the number of General and Flag officer billets and to streamline management headquarters in an effort to save $100 billion over 10 years. Reducing unnecessary overhead is something we must insist upon in these fiscally constrained times. Increasing the authorization for the Department of Defense Inspector General by $36 million will allow the office to perform additional oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs. Historically, DOD IG reviews have resulted in a return on investment of nearly $11 dollars for every $1 appropriated. The bill wisely rejects the President's proposal to authorize a new Base Realignment and Closure round in 2015 and prohibits the authorization of another BRAC round at least until the Department submits a review of excess overseas military facilities. This is the right way to proceed because the GAO has found that the previous BRAC round has never produced the amount of savings that were promised when it was originally sold to Congress. While this is an excellent bill, I hope to offer several amendments to make this important bill even stronger in addressing the national security challenges facing our country. The first amendment I intend to offer, with my colleague Senator King, has been requested by the Navy to support the final settlement of the A-12 case. The Navy has reached an agreement with Boeing and General Dynamics to settle a decades-old lawsuit concerning the cancellation of the A-12 aircraft. Our amendment would allow the Navy to accept $400 million in in-kind payments from industry to satisfy outstanding Navy claims related to the A-12 legal dispute between the Navy and two contractors, Boeing and General Dynamics. All parties--the Navy, the Department of Justice, Boeing, and General Dynamics--support the settlement. If this amendment is adopted, the Navy will receive $400 million worth of needed military hardware effectively for free at a time when it is facing incredible fiscal challenges from sequestration. In addition, taxpayers benefit because there is no guarantee the government will ultimately prevail in the ongoing litigation. If the government does not prevail, taxpayers may not get anything. The second amendment I intend to file would require athletic footwear purchased for new military recruits to be domestically manufactured. Currently, DOD is circumventing the intent of the law known as the Berry Amendment through the use of cash allowances that provide no preference for domestically manufactured footwear. This amendment, which is also cosponsored by Senator King, would align the procurement policy for athletic footwear with other footwear and clothing provided to servicemembers. In the last year, the Defense Logistics Agency has awarded more than $36 million in contracts for combat boots and dress shoes made in America. In contrast, the military services have provided cash vouchers totaling more than $15 million per year to new recruits to purchase athletic footwear, without any preference for domestically manufactured products. Why should DOD single out athletic footwear to be treated differently from dress shoes or combat boots? Another amendment with Senator Blumenthal would require the Attorney General to jointly prescribe regulations to implement prescription drug take-back programs with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs. We know prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides, which are occurring at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, 349 servicemembers died from suicide in 2012--more than the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat in Afghanistan last year. According to the VA, 22 veterans commit suicide each day based on data collected from more than 21 States. Last year, the Senate adopted this amendment by unanimous consent. Regrettably, the provision was eliminated at the urging of the Drug Enforcement Agency with assurances that the agency was nearing completion of regulations that would address the concern. One year later, we are still receiving written assurances from the DEA that they are ``almost ready'' to complete these regulations. In the meantime, prescription drug abuse continues to afflict our service men and women and our veterans. We cannot sit idly by for another year waiting for the bureaucracy to address this matter of life and death. Finally, Senator King and I will offer an amendment to allow businesses that are located on a closed military base to draw employees from the local community to meet the 35-percent requirement for the purposes of qualifying as a HUBZone. Congress previously passed a law to assist communities affected by previous BRAC rounds by allowing former bases to be eligible for HUBZone status, which provides preferences for certain Federal contracting opportunities. Unfortunately, the law limits the geographic boundaries of a BRAC- related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed, which makes it difficult or impossible for businesses to qualify for the HUBZone program. Our amendment would allow employees that live in nearby census tracts to count toward the 35 percent requirement and extend the period of eligibility from 5 years to 10 years so Congress' original intent can be fulfilled. In addition to these amendments, I intend to cosponsor several others to further improve the bill. Once again, I will support Senator Feinstein's amendment to make clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested in the U.S. cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. I am also cosponsoring an amendment with Senator Pryor to make sure that our dual status National Guard technicians are treated on an equal footing as our Active-Duty personnel. If our Active-Duty personnel are exempted from sequestration, then the National Guard dual status technicians--who are effectively the equivalent of Active-Duty military in the National Guard--should be exempt as well. Let me close by thanking Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for their hard work in putting together a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of our military and our national security.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 303 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here on the Senate floor with my friend and colleague from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar as we submit an important resolution. This month is National Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is a terrible disease that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. As have many families, mine has experienced the pain of Alzheimer's. I know there is no more helpless feeling than to watch the progression of this devastating disease. It is equally painful to witness the emotional and physical damage inflicted on family caregivers exhausted by an endless series of 36- hour days. Moreover, Alzheimer's disease is the only cause of death among the top 10 in our Nation without a way to prevent it, to cure it, or even to slow its progression. More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease--more than double the number in 1980. Based on current projections, as many as 16 million Americans over the age of 65 will have Alzheimer's by the year 2050. In addition to the tremendous human suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States more than $200 billion a year, including $142 billion in costs to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. This price tag will increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. If we fail to change the current trajectory of Alzheimer's disease, our country will not only face a mounting public health crisis but an economic one as well. If nothing is done to slow or stop this disease, the Alzheimer's Association estimates that Alzheimer's will cost our country an astonishing $20 trillion over the next 40 years. It is estimated that nearly one in two baby boomers reaching the age of 85 will develop Alzheimer's. As a consequence, chances are the members of the baby boom generation will either be spending their golden years suffering from Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. In many ways, Alzheimer's has become the defining disease of this generation. If we are to prevent Alzheimer's from becoming the defining disease of the next generation, it is imperative that we dramatically increase our investment in Alzheimer's disease research. According to a study commissioned by the National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer's and other dementias cost the United States more than cancer and heart disease. This study finds that both the costs and number of people with dementia will more than double within 30 years--skyrocketing at a rate that rarely occurs with a chronic disease. At a time when the cost to Medicare and Medicaid of caring for Alzheimer's patients exceeds $140 billion a year, we are spending only slightly more than $500 million on Alzheimer's research. We are spending $142 billion under Medicare and Medicaid, more than $200 billion overall, and yet only $500 million on research. We currently spend $6 billion a year for cancer research, $3 billion a year for research on HIV/AIDS, and $2 billion for cardiovascular research. And I wish to emphasize that those are always worthy investments--investments that have paid dividends in terms of better treatments, cures, and in some cases prolonged lives. Surely we can do more for Alzheimer's given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease was authorized by a bipartisan law passed in 2010 called the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which I authored with then-Senator Evan Bayh. The national plan has as its primary goal to ``prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025.'' The chairman of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services, which was created by the National Alzheimer's Project Act, has testified before Congress that the United States must devote at least $2 billion a year to Alzheimer's research to achieve that goal. I am therefore joining with my colleague from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar in submitting this resolution declaring that the goal of preventing and effectively treating Alzheimer's by 2025 is an urgent national priority. Our resolution recognizes that dramatic increases in research funding are necessary to meet that goal and resolves that the Senate will strive to double the amount of funding the United States spends on Alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2015 and then develop a plan to meet the target of $2 billion a year over the next 5 years. Just think of the figures. We are spending some $212 billion a year treating, caring for people with Alzheimer's. All we are asking is that over the next 5 years we achieve the goal that the Alzheimer's Council--a council of experts in Alzheimer's-- including experts from the Mayo Clinic in Senator Klobuchar's home State, have recommended that we spend $2 billion. Mr. President, $2 billion is such a tiny percentage of the amount we are spending. So this is a worthy investment. It is one that will not only relieve suffering, save lives, potentially, but it will also more than pay for itself. I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Alzheimer's Association and the UsAgainstAlzheimer's group--both predominant national advocacy groups endorsing our resolution--be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who has been such a leader in this area, has joined me on the Senate floor and I yield the floor to her.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. First, I wish to commend the senior Senator from Maryland, the dean of the women Senators, for organizing this debate today on an issue that concerns each of us; that is, the growing crisis of sexual assault in the military. I first raised my concern over the military's inadequate response to the growing crisis of sexual assault nearly 10 years ago. I remember it well. It was a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, at which I expressed my growing alarm about the number of sexual assaults in the military and the inadequate response by the leaders of the military to provide adequate care for the survivors and to ensure appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of these reprehensible crimes. In an exchange I had with GEN George Casey, I stated the military needs to be much more responsive to reports of sexual assault, particularly in the field, and to separate these women and, in some cases, the male victims, from their alleged attackers. The Department must also vigorously prosecute offenders and hold commanders accountable for establishing zero tolerance policies. To say that General Casey's response was disappointing would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had heeded the concerns that I and others such as Senator Mikulski raised a decade ago, this terrible problem would have been addressed much sooner, saving many individuals from the trauma, the pain, and the injustice they endured. Back then, sadly, the attitude of the high-ranking officials who were testifying at that 2004 hearing was dismissive, even though these crimes never should have occurred in the first place, traumatized the survivors, and eroded the trust and discipline that are fundamental to every military unit. Thankfully, the attitude I perceive amongst senior military officers today is markedly different from the one I encountered 9 years ago. The work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality, however, remains unfinished business. Fostering a culture of zero tolerance so that the number of assaults is greatly diminished remains a goal, not reality. Ensuring that survivors do not think twice about reporting an assault for fear of retaliation or damage to their careers is still not part of the military culture. In 2011, I joined our former colleague John Kerry in coauthoring the Defense STRONG Act as an initial step to address this crisis. Provisions of that bill were signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. They provide survivors of sexual assault the assistance of advocates with genuine confidentiality. They provide guaranteed access to an attorney and expedited consideration to be transferred far away from their assailant. Earlier this year I introduced the Coast Guard STRONG Act to extend these protections to Coast Guard members. I thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Senator McCaskill for their work to include these provisions in this year's NDAA. More than anything, survivors need to have the confidence that the legal system in which they report a crime will produce a just and fair result. Based upon data from the Department of Defense's most recent sexual assault prevention and response survey, that view is not held by enough servicemembers or survivors. As a result, I have supported and introduced legislation with Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill aimed at reducing the barriers to justice that many survivors of sexual assault currently face in the military. I commend both Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill for their extraordinary leadership and dedication to resolving this unacceptable problem. Let me also thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for incorporating significant provisions from both bills into the NDAA. In fact, there are more than 26 provisions specifically targeting sexual assault in the military in the bill that we are debating today. For example--and there are many, but I wish to highlight one because it was part of a bill Senator McCaskill and I introduced--the legislation mandates a dishonorable discharge or dismissal for any servicemember convicted of sexual assault. This came from a bipartisan, bicameral bill, the BE SAFE Act, that I introduced with Senator McCaskill, Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, and Congressman Mike Turner earlier this year. In addition, the NDAA eliminates the ability of a convening authority to overturn a conviction by a jury post-trial for major offenses. It permits a commander to relocate an alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault crime rather than relocating the survivor following an attack. It eliminates certain factors, such as the alleged character of the accused, that a commander can consider in deciding how to dispose of an offense so that these decisions are based on evidence and the law. Finally, the bill includes a provision I support that requires the military to provide an attorney dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults who can provide legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the most. There are many other important provisions that are included in this bill. Our work will not be complete until the Pentagon has demonstrated that it is fully enforcing its stated policy of zero tolerance for sexual assault. There are strong views in the Pentagon and in Congress on how best to address this issue beyond the 26 provisions in the bill before us. There is much debate on what it means for the military's unique legal system. One of the criticisms I have heard is that we should wait a few more months for the results of still more studies or perhaps even wait a few more years to see if recently enacted provisions have made a difference. I strongly disagree. How many more victims are required to suffer before we take additional action? How many more lives must be ruined before we act? Rather than waiting for the results of yet more studies, we must debate proposals to increase the confidence of survivors and increase prevention efforts now until we have proved that the military has, indeed, fostered a culture of zero tolerance in which survivors are no longer concerned about retaliation from their peers or even their commanders. This is why I have decided to support Senator Gillibrand's amendment to this bill. This was not an easy decision, as there are valid arguments on both sides. Senator Gillibrand's amendment takes aim squarely at the problem of victims failing to report sexual assault. In my judgment, her amendment will encourage more victims to report sexual assaults, and that is absolutely critical. There can be no question about the Senate's commitment to reducing the instances of sexual assault in the military and to providing appropriate care for survivors. As we debate various proposals, we are united by the need for the serious reforms that are included already in this bill and that will enhance the military's response to sexual assault. I wish to thank all of those on the Armed Services Committee, particularly the two leaders, Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand, for their excellent work. I am certain our work on the NDAA will make a real difference in reducing unnecessary suffering, injury, and injustice.