Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my heartfelt congratulations to my esteemed colleague and dear friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, on becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. This milestone, reached on March 17, marks 12,858 days--more than 35 years--of dedicated service to her beloved State of Maryland and to our Nation. A little more than a year ago, in January of 2011, Senator Mikulski began her 25th year in the Senate, surpassing my personal role model in public service, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the Great Lady from Maine. Adding in her 10 years in the House, Senator Mikulski now establishes the record for longevity in either chamber, set by Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers, who represented Massachusetts but was born in Maine. For me, the special meaning of this occasion goes far beyond such coincidences. Just as Congresswoman Rogers and Senator Smith inspired young women in the past to lives in public service, Senator Mikulski inspires the young women of today. As a new Senator in 1997, I was welcomed by her kindness and helped by her wisdom. She taught me the ropes of the appropriations process and instituted regular bipartisan dinners for the women of the Senate. It has been a privilege to work with Senator Mikulski for 15 years. During that time, I have come to know her as a fighter and a trailblazer. Senator Mikulski is, above all, a hard worker. Growing up in east Baltimore, she learned the value of hard work at her family's grocery store. Her commitment to making a difference in her neighborhood led her to the path of service, first as social worker, then as a city councilor and as a Member of Congress. Senator Mikulski's longevity is only the preface to her story of exceptional accomplishment. She has fought for increased access to higher education for our young people and for improved health care for our seniors. I am proud to have fought at her side on those issues, as well as for increased Alzheimer's research, improved women's health care, and enhanced educational opportunities for nurses. As House colleagues during and after World War II, Margaret Chase Smith and Edith Nourse Rogers were instrumental in achieving full recognition for women in uniform. Senator Mikulski carries on that legacy as a determined advocate for all who serve our country. Working with her on the Appropriations Committee, I have witnessed firsthand how seriously she takes her responsibility to the American taxpayers. Throughout her life in public service, Senator Mikulski has lived by one guiding principle: to help our people meet the needs of today as she helps our Nation prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. It is an honor to congratulate Senator Barbara Mikulski for her many years of service, and to wish her many more.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am proud to have their support. Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first responders around the country will get the essential training, education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and natural. Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks. America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer-- always answer the call. In a report released in September, the United States Fire Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent. During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be proud of this progress. According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300 injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American families. We must also continue to educate and train current and future generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the professional development of fire services personnel through the National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as well as many other critical courses. My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is 17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from only nine in 2010--both are too many. With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can make further progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in our nation. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am proud to have their support. Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first responders around the country will get the essential training, education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and natural. Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks. America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer-- always answer the call. In a report released in September, the United States Fire Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent. During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be proud of this progress. According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300 injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American families. We must also continue to educate and train current and future generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the professional development of fire services personnel through the National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as well as many other critical courses. My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is 17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from only nine in 2010--both are too many. With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can make further progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in our nation. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 20 minutes in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated that the Senate may soon turn to legislation to reform a much needed, much beloved American institution--the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service is nearly as old as our Nation itself. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of having a Postal Service. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish post offices. This is the same section that allows Congress to declare war, to coin money, to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to collect taxes, et cetera. So, clearly, the Post Office was viewed from the very beginning of our Nation as being essential to our economic well-being and to bringing together our country. The Postal Service is also required by law to provide as nearly as practicable the entire population of the United States with adequate and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates. This is what is known as the universal mandate and it ensures that the Postal Service cannot leave behind our rural States or our small towns. Yet, the Postal Service, which has delivered mail to generation after generation of Americans, will not be able to meet its expenses sometime this fall, according to the Postmaster General. In the past 2 years alone, the Postal Service has lost an astonishing $13.6 billion. First-class mail volume has dropped 26 percent since 2006, and the trends are not encouraging. Since no one wants the mail to stop being delivered later this year, that means we must pass a postal reform bill and we must do so soon. The economic impact of the Postal Service is enormous. It is the linchpin of a mailing industry that employs more than 8.5 million people and generates almost $1 trillion of economic activity every year. Virtually everyone--from big retailers to small businesses, to online shops--relies on the Postal Service to deliver packages, advertise services, and send out bills. The jobs of Americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, and paper manufacturing are all linked to a viable Postal Service. Nearly 38,000 Mainers work in jobs related to the mailing industry, including thousands at our pulp and paper mills, such as the one in Bucksport, ME, which manufactures the paper that is used for Time magazine. My point is, many of us think in terms of the post office by way of the small post office that may be in our community or the friendly letter carrier who comes to our door. Certainly, that is an important part of the service provided by the Postal Service. But the economic impact of the Postal Service is enormous. The crisis facing the Postal Service is dire. They cannot lose billions of dollars year after year after year and hope to stay in business. The crisis is not, however, hopeless. With the right tools and action from Congress, the administration, and the Postal Service leadership, the Postal Service can reform, rightsize, modernize, and continue to serve our country for generations to come. My colleagues--Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Brown--and I have worked extremely hard during the past several months to craft bipartisan legislation to update the Postal Service's business model and give it the tools it needs to survive and succeed. We have introduced a bill that will help the Postal Service reduce its operating costs, modernize its business model, and innovate to generate new revenue. However, the Postmaster General and I fundamentally disagree on how to save the U.S. Postal Service. I am concerned--indeed, deeply worried--that he continues to make decisions that will severely degrade the service and drive away customers, and that will undermine the opportunity for our bipartisan legislation to be successful. It is clear we have two very different visions on how best to help the Postal Service. While each of us wants to ensure that the Postal Service is set on a sustainable path, I fear the Postmaster General's approach would shrink the Postal Service to a level that will ultimately hasten its insolvency. I cannot think of another business that would respond to a loss of customers by further shrinking its service to its existing customers. Most businesses, whether they are large or small, would redouble their efforts to better serve their customers in hopes of retaining them and attracting new businesses. Yet the current plan by the Postal Service would slow the delivery of first-class mail, close facilities, and ignore Congress. It flies in the face of the good-faith that I and the other negotiators have extended to the Postal Service during the many months we have worked on the reform bill. We have worked hand in hand over a number of months with the Postmaster General to craft a bill that would save the Postal Service money in a way that prioritizes the lifeblood of the mail: the mailers and the service around which commercial mailers have built their business models and around which individual customers have developed their mailing habits. Despite these negotiations, the Postmaster General has pushed ahead with plans to abandon the current mail service standards in favor of reduced access, slower delivery times, and higher prices. That will simply force many customers to pursue delivery alternatives. If those adjustments involve shifting to nonpostal alternatives--even in a minority of cases, say, 10 or 20 percent--the Postal Service would face an irreversible catastrophe. For once customers turn to other communications options and leave the mail system, they will not be coming back. The result will be that the Postal Service will be sucked into a death spiral from which it will be unable to recover. We simply cannot allow that to happen. What do I mean when I say businesses will adjust their business model? Companies large and small that rely on the mail tell me if service continues to deteriorate--if the Postmaster General engages in these wide-ranging closures of essential processing plants--the Postal Service's customers will conduct more business online and encourage their customers to switch to online services for bill paying and other transactions. Other companies, such as small weekly newspapers or pharmaceutical suppliers, have told me they would seek nonpostal delivery options, such as for local delivery and transport services. Again, let's assume only a small fraction of businesses change their operations by shifting away from the Postal Service. It still could spell the end for the U.S. mail system. Listen to this statistic: For every 5 percent drop in first-class mail volume, the Postal Service loses $1.6 billion in revenue. That is why the downsizing of the labor force and excess capacity the Postmaster General states is so critical to saving the Postal Service must be carried out in a way that preserves service and does not inflict avoidable harm on dedicated postal workers. Too many in the Postal Service leadership have assumed this simply cannot be done, that it is impossible. But the fact is there are many options to cut costs and expand revenue while preserving service. Let me just mention some of them. Several of them are in the bipartisan bill. First, we could reduce the size of processing plants without closing them. I have suggested this for the processing plant in Hampden, ME, that is on the chopping block. It should not be because it means that mail from northern Maine would have to make a 622-mile round trip for some northern Maine communities in order to be processed. But if the processing plant is too big, reduce its footprint. Rent out part of the plant. That would even generate revenue and rightsize the processing plant without hurting delivery times. We could move tiny post offices into local grocery stores. We could and should and must reform an expensive and unfair workers' compensation program that costs the Postal Service more than $1 billion a year. We could allow the Postal Service to ship wine and beer the way its competitors can. We could refund and should refund an overpayment into the Federal retirement system that amounts to between $10 billion and $11 billion. The Postmaster General says he can develop a new health care plan that would greatly decrease the need to prefund future retiree benefits. We could use buyouts authorized by our bill to encourage employees to retire. Many postal workers are eligible for retirement. But, sadly, the Postmaster General is, instead, proceeding with a disastrously flawed plan, as is evidenced by the recent announcement of Draconian processing plant closures. This coupled with the still- pending closures of nearly 4,000 mostly rural post offices and the Postmaster General's push to eliminate overnight and Saturday delivery tell me the current postal leadership is gravely underestimating the consequences of lesser service on revenue from customers who depend on the service as it is provided today. That is not to say there is not excess capacity. That is not to say the workforce should not be reduced, but it can be done so in a smart way and a compassionate way. It also suggests the Postmaster General is prepared to have rural America bear the brunt of severe reductions in service that violates the universal service mandate. The Postal Regulatory Commission concluded just that in its analysis of the impact of the proposal to end Saturday delivery. It found the savings were far less than the Postmaster General had estimated. The Postal Service will not be saved by a bare-bones approach that will require massive adjustments by its customers. That will drive more of them out of the Postal Service. Perhaps that might have worked in a time when customers had no alternatives, such as would have been the case decades ago. But today the massive shift to online publications and commerce provides many businesses and individual consumers with alternatives to using the mail. A good portion of them may well explore and settle on those alternatives if the Postal Service makes it harder for them to serve their customers. For customers who simply cannot adjust their business model, they could be forced out of business, taking much needed jobs with them. The approach taken by our postal reform bill, the 21st Century Postal Service Act, would be to reduce excess capacity while still preserving service for the customers of the Postal Service. Our bill would not ban the closure of every single postal facility, but it would establish service standards and allow for meaningful public comment procedures that would ensure that delivery delays and the impact on customers are considered. The result would be that most facilities would remain open so as to preserve overnight delivery, Saturday delivery, and easy access to bulk processing for commercial mailers. Our bill would still allow the Postal Service to reduce the workforce using buyouts, and it would still allow processing capacity to be reduced to match the declining volume. For example, rather than closing a plant that has excess capacity, our plan would allow the plant to downsize its labor and volume capacity. This could mean running one shift instead of two or a half shift instead of a whole shift or using one sorting machine rather than two or using half the space and renting out the rest, and so forth. That way the plant could still process the mail in the region in a timely fashion while saving money and, indeed, in some cases, generating more revenue. Under the Postmaster General's plan, however, that plant would close, and its volume would be processed much further away, thus degrading service. The loss in revenue due to dramatically reduced service under the Postmaster General's plan would not take place under our plan, and the negative ripple effects on customers, jobs, and the broader economy would be avoided with our bill set to come to the floor very soon. The Postmaster General has nonetheless moved forward with preparations for sweeping closures and service reductions. That means even if our bill were to pass quickly, get through conference, be sent to the President's desk, and start to be implemented over a matter of just a few months, the Postal Service's ill-conceived actions would already have done damage to its customer base. After all, customers have to plan now for what they fear may be coming. Customers are already making contingency plans and exploring alternatives. In this way the Postal Service has already triggered the potential hemorrhaging of customers that our bill would prevent should it become law. But on top of the damage already incurred, what this reckless move demonstrates is an attitude that is dead set on letting the Service deteriorate and ignoring what customers want. That attitude seems to be so stubbornly entrenched among the senior leaders of the Postal Service that I worry that even if our bill were to become law next week, the current Postal Service leadership would not enact it properly. Without an attitude of service first, I am concerned that all the important processes and considerations we put in the bill could just become box-checking exercises for the Postal Service; that it is looking to just maintain the appearance of compliance rather than embarking on a new path. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. This approach by the Postal Service is all the more inexcusable given its unfortunate reputation for fuzzy math. By cutting service and raising prices and not fully calculating the resulting disastrous revenue losses, the Postal Service has put forth numbers that we simply cannot rely upon. Unfortunately, this is not new. The Postal Service's assumptions about the projected losses and savings from service cuts have proven unreliable in the past, as the Postal Regulatory Commission has found. Furthermore, we are relying on the Postal Service's data and projections without giving the Postal Regulatory Commission the opportunity to provide its advisory opinion, which is expected this summer. I hope my concerns can be addressed. But it raises real questions about whether proceeding with the postal reform bill is futile. If the Postmaster General is eroding the customer base and implementing service cuts before we can enact legislation, are we just wasting time trying to pass a bill? Can we still save the Postal Service? So I find myself in a quandary, one created by the Postmaster General himself as he shifts from plan to plan, from negotiation to negotiation. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for those of us who are so committed to saving the historic Postal Service so it can continue to be a vital American institution for generations to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 1660, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, to the highway reauthorization bill. I am very pleased to have Senator Alexander, Senator Pryor, Senator Toomey, Senator Landrieu, and Senator McCaskill joining me as cosponsors of this amendment. Last year I introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act (S. 1392) to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the time the Agency itself said it needed to rewrite the proposed Boiler MACT rules to better serve the public interest and to protect vulnerable manufacturing jobs. That legislation had the support of 41 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and a nearly identical bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support this fall. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act is straightforward. It will help ensure that the final Boiler MACT regulations will be achievable and affordable and that manufacturers will have adequate time to bring their facilities into compliance, thus preserving jobs. We hear over and over again that the top priority of the Senate should be to create an environment where jobs are created and preserved. Well, this amendment is all about saving jobs. Since the EPA proposed these new Boiler MACT regulations in April of 2010, there has been widespread bipartisan concern over the cost of the implementation and potential job losses. It has been our shared goal to ensure that the final rules crafted by the EPA protect public health and the environment, while preventing the loss of thousands of jobs we can ill afford to lose. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to protect and to grow America's manufacturing workforce. This is all about jobs. We have urged the EPA to set emission standards based on real-world capabilities of the best performing boilers currently available. After all, that is what Boiler MACT is supposed to be all about. Unfortunately, the EPA did not begin its rulemaking with that goal in mind, and the consequences are so serious. The forest products industry is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities in my State of Maine and many others; therefore, I am alarmed by a study commissioned by the American Forest and Paper Association which found that implementing the EPA rules as originally drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of work. That is 18 percent of the workforce in just this one manufacturing sector. Mr. President, you may have heard that the EPA has revised its rules, and it has. But despite these revisions, the Boiler MACT rules remain an issue of great concern to manufacturers across the country and to many of my constituents. With the reconsideration process, the EPA has taken some initial steps, but they are not even close to sufficient. The Agency's reproposed rules still do not address the serious and real threat to factories and mills that will be most directly affected. The revised rules are still estimated to cost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Regions across this Nation already struggling with the decline in manufacturing would be the hardest hit. Furthermore, a recent court ruling has created even more uncertainty and confusion, and it has increased the pressure on EPA to just rush through these rules without careful consideration. Legislative action is needed to ensure achievable and affordable rules, to allow adequate compliance time, and to reduce the risk to industries posed by the pending litigation, which has created so much uncertainty that manufacturers are telling me they are putting any job expansions on hold. Enactment of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act remains the best way to provide the time the EPA says it needs to develop and implement Boiler MACT rules that will deliver the intended benefits to public health and our environment without devastating our economy. There is no need for a choice--it is not the environment versus jobs. With carefully crafted regulations, we can protect the environment and preserve jobs. There are several factors that reinforce the continuing need for this legislation. First, the overall capital cost to manufacturers of the Boiler MACT rules remains a staggering $14 billion and threatens more than 200,000 critically needed, good jobs. Think about that. The revised rules have an estimated cost of $14 billion, and 200,000 jobs would be lost. Second, following the January 9 court decision that overturned the EPA's stay of the March 2011 rules--and this was a stay that the EPA, to its credit, requested but unfortunately was denied--businesses are facing serious and ongoing legal and regulatory uncertainty. Third, the revised rules still do not allow companies adequate time to comply with the new standards and install the required equipment. Fourth, important biomass materials are still not listed as fuels. That makes no sense at all. We are trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. We should be encouraging the use of biomass in boilers. In fact, the Department of Energy is doing just that while the EPA is doing the opposite through these rules. It makes no sense to force mills to use fossil fuels while landfilling renewable biomass material. That makes no sense whatsoever. Finally, the EPA's current schedule for finalizing the rules is inadequate for fully analyzing the comments and data that will be received during the comment period. The EPA recognizes that, and that is why it asked for this stay. So I would ask of my colleagues, do not be deceived by the EPA's hollow promises that somehow, some way, everything will be fixed and that we don't need this legislation. The fact is that the EPA regulations are a moving target. Who knows what they ultimately will propose? Some of the materials of the biomass boilers are still being considered as solid waste and treated as an incinerator with far more costly and onerous regulations, but then again, this is the same EPA that initially proposed that we no longer treat biomass and wood as carbon neutral, overturning years of treating wood as carbon neutral. That makes no sense either. Under tremendous pressure, the EPA finally backed off on that for 3 years, but we don't know what is going to happen. Let me say that the EPA does perform some vital functions in helping to protect public health by ensuring that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. I have opposed many attempts to delay or overturn EPA regulations, but we need to make sure that as EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs. We need to make sure the EPA both protects the environment and protects our economy and does not impose billions of dollars of new costs on manufacturers, leading to an estimated loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing at a time when our economy can least afford it and when there are alternatives. I am not saying there should not be Boiler MACT regulations. I am saying we need more time for the EPA to get it right, to work with the industry, to get real-life emission standards. I am saying we need more time for compliance so that we are not imposing these huge costs at a time when our manufacturers are struggling and thus jeopardizing jobs. A coalition of 380 companies and organizations--I don't think I have ever offered an amendment with more support. And this has so many companies so upset about what this is going to do to the much needed jobs they are providing. There are 380 companies and organizations, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Forest and Paper Association, and those are just a few of the 380 companies and organizations that have called for passage of my amendment. The members of this coalition are committed to working with the EPA, to being good stewards and supporting the development and implementation of achievable Boiler MACT rules, not rules that don't classify biomass, that force people to use fossil fuels instead of biomass. How is that good for our environment? It is essential that the EPA produce final rules that are guided by the same commitment. The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the Boiler MACT rules, but we have no idea where they are going to end up. They are a moving target, and we have had promises not fulfilled by the EPA before. I believe we can achieve the health benefits we all desire. And I know we are going to hear on the floor that somehow I am trying to harm children or delay health benefits, and that is not true. I am trying to allow the time the EPA says it needs to get this right. We can achieve health benefits we desire without putting thousands of people out of work and stifling the economic recovery. The bipartisan dilemma that is before us will help ensure that result, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment to preserve jobs and strengthen our environmental protections.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 1660, which is at the desk, and ask that it be reported.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 28, I voted aye. It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just explain very briefly. I was told that the amendment had been modified to accommodate concerns I have raised, and then the amendment was not so modified. So I wanted to put in that explanation to explain why the error was made.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a very modest bipartisan amendment. It simply gives the EPA more time to get these regulations right, and our struggling manufacturers will get more time to comply with them. It is a false choice to say that this is the environment versus the economy. We can have both. If this amendment is not adopted and the current regulations go into effect, the estimates are that they will cost manufacturers $14 billion to comply, and we will lose 200,000 manufacturing jobs at a time when we can least afford it. All we are asking is for more time to get these regulations right. I urge support for the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this was very frustrating to me. I asked a key question, and I could not get a straight answer. It also demonstrates many of the problems associated with employer mandates. I believe the sponsor of this amendment is completely sincere. I want to make that clear. But this issue has become yet another sad example of election-year politics. I believe a good compromise could have been reached and should have been worked out. For example, in Maine, State law requiring contraception coverage includes a specific exemption for religious employers, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. Surely we could have reached a similar accommodation. Unfortunately, what we are left with is another example of the political pandering that has so tested Americans' patience. Since I could not and did not receive a straightforward answer to my question about protecting self-insured faith-based organizations, I feel that I have to vote for Senator Blunt's amendment, with the hope that its scope will be further narrowed and refined as the legislative process proceeds. Critics of the Blunt amendment have charged that employers could use it as an excuse to deny coverage for services simply as a means to reduce their insurance costs. As Senator Blunt, however, has pointed out, the amendment includes specific language to require that the overall cost of the coverage remains the same even though an employer excludes certain services because of their religious beliefs. As a consequence, under this amendment, employers would have no incentive to exclude coverage of items or services simply because of financial considerations. Mr. President, while I plan to support the amendment, I do so with serious reservations because I think the amendment does have its flaws. But when the administration cannot even assure me that self-insured faith-based organizations' religious freedoms are protected, I feel I have no choice. I hope that the Senate will now be able to move forward to address the many important and pressing issues facing our Nation such as job creation, energy and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, February 24, 2012. Hon. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Sebelius: Like many Americans, I was very concerned when, on January 20, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation to require religious universities, hospitals, charities and other faith- based organizations to pay for health insurance that covers contraceptives and sterilizations regardless of the organization's religious objections. I believe that such a broad mandate poses a threat to our religious freedom and presents the Catholic church and other faith-based organizations with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating federal regulations. I was somewhat reassured when, on February 10, the President announced an ``accommodation'' that would require insurance companies rather than religious organizations to provide these services. According to the White House statement, ``religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception,'' and ``religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.'' While the President has announced some changes in how the new preventive coverage mandate will be administered, many of the details remain unclear. A very important issue is how the rule would treat self-insured faith-based institutions. For example, there are many Catholic hospitals that are self- insured, and therefore act as both the employer and the insurer. The final rule simply states that the ``Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.'' I would therefore like further specific clarification of how self-insured faith-based organizations will be treated under the rule to ensure that their rights of conscience are protected. Thank you for your prompt assistance on this important issue. Sincerely, Susan M. Collins, United States Senator.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have always been a very strong proponent of family planning programs and of measures to promote and protect women's health. Like many Americans, however, I was very concerned in January when the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation to require religious universities, hospitals, charities, and other faith-based organizations to pay for health insurance that covers contraceptives and sterilizations regardless of the organization's religious beliefs. I believe such a mandate poses a threat to our religious freedom and presents the Catholic Church and other faith-based organizations with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating Federal regulations. In February President Obama announced what he termed an ``accommodation'' that would require insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, to provide these services. But as I read the details of that ``accommodation,'' it became very clear to me that many parts of the plan remained unclear. A key issue, for example, revolves around self-insured religious-based organizations. There are many Catholic hospitals and universities that are self-insured and thus act as both the employer and the insurer, and a very important issue is how the rule would treat these self-insured faith-based organizations. But the rule was totally unclear. It simply said that the ``Departments intend to develop policies to achieve the same goals for self-insured group health plans sponsored by non-exempted, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.'' In an attempt to clarify this critical issue, I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius asking for specific clarification on how faith-based organizations that are self-insured and thus act as both the insurer and the employer would have their rights of conscience protected. This was not a complicated question. It was a very straightforward question, and frankly, the answer to the question was going to determine my vote on this very important amendment. Sadly, the administration once again skirted the answer. In her response, Secretary Sebelius simply said the President ``is committed to rulemaking to ensure access to these important preventive services in fully insured and self-insured group health plans while further accommodating religious organizations' beliefs.'' What does that mean, Mr. President? I ask unanimous consent that both my letter to Secretary Sebelius and her reply be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first let me thank the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Tennessee for their usual courtesies but also for organizing this colloquy on the Senate floor this evening. I am very pleased to join my colleagues as we talk about the goal of taking up the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bills in what we in the Senate call the regular order. What does that mean? As the Presiding Officer is well aware, that means we would bring up each of the individual bills, they would be open to full and fair debate, they would be amended, they would be voted on, and we would avoid having some colossal bill at the end of the year that combines all the appropriations bills. Those bills are often thousands of pages in length. A lot of times some of the provisions have not had the opportunity to be thoroughly vetted. They really are not very transparent. They contribute to the public's concern about the way we do business here in Washington. I too join in commending the majority leader, the Republican leader, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee for their commitment to try to work together in a bipartisan fashion so each and every one of the appropriations bills can be brought before the full Senate so that we can work our will on each of these bills. I suggest that it is important to the Senate as an institution that we achieve this goal. It is also important for the American people to see that we can carry out our constitutional responsibility. Most of all, it is important for restoring trust in government that we work together in an open and bipartisan manner to establish priorities, to make the tough spending decisions that will be required, and to complete on time the work the Constitution requires of us. I believe it is important to remember that these bills make important investments in research, economic development, infrastructure, our national defense, education, and health care, and that these bills not only create jobs now when they are needed most but also establish the foundations for future growth. Just as important to our economic future is the need to rein in Federal spending. Our work must continue toward the goal of getting our national debt under control. The best way for us to achieve these goals is for each and every one of the appropriations bills to come before the full Senate and for us to work our will on those bills. That is the way the Senate should operate. It is the way we must operate in order to restore the faith of the American people in this institution. Let me conclude my remarks by thanking Senator Alexander and Senator Pryor for initiating this colloquy tonight. This is the way we can come together, and America will be better for it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in his famous essay titled ``Courage,'' Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that he most admired those ``who can organize their wishes and thoughts in stone and wood and steel and brass.'' In our time, when so much is mass produced and temporary, we have a special regard for the craftsmen and women who turn the materials provided by nature into objects of beautiful form and lasting function. I rise today to congratulate the craftsmen and women of Thos. Moser Cabinetmakers of Auburn, ME, as they celebrate the 40th anniversary of this remarkable company. With skill and creativity, they transform black cherry, maple, ash, and walnut into fine furniture that is recognized worldwide as the pinnacle of the woodworkers' art. This story of success driven by the pursuit of excellence began in 1972, when Tom Moser left the secure life of a college professor to follow his dream to revive the craftsmanship of woodworkers of the past. With his wife Mary, they set up shop in an old Grange Hall in New Gloucester, ME. They met the challenges faced by all entrepreneurs with determination. Soon, their sons joined them in the growing business. Today, 70 skilled men and women work in their modern woodshop in Auburn and another 50 in other aspects of the operation, including showrooms in major American cities, from New York and Washington, DC, to Los Angeles and San Francisco. When Tom and Mary Moser founded this company, they did more than revive quality woodworking--they were pioneers in Maine's thriving creative economy. From cutting-edge technology to the arts, these visionaries are moving our State forward, building new industries and new opportunities. This segment of the creative economy truly defines Maine. The resurgence of furniture making, cabinetry, pottery, and textiles bring the past alive and remind us of the special quality of something made by hand in Maine. The talented designers and woodworkers of Thos. Moser Cabinetmakers create objects that bring pleasure today and will be treasured heirlooms for generations to come. I congratulate the Moser family and all their employees for 40 years of success.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do rise today to introduce with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee Senator Lieberman, as well as Senator Rockefeller and Senator Feinstein, the Cyber Security Act of 2012. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with my friend and colleague from Connecticut on what I believe is the most important initiative we have come together on since perhaps our 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. I am also delighted that three Senate chairmen who have significant jurisdiction in this area--Senators Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Feinstein--have come together. We have all worked very hard on this bill. I also want to commend the staff of our committee, which has worked extraordinarily hard over several years to produce this bill. Our legislation would provide the Federal Government and the private sector with the tools necessary to protect our most critical infrastructure from growing cyber threats. Earlier this month, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned that the cyber threat will soon equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. He argued that we should be addressing the cyber threat with the same intensity we have applied to the terrorist threat. Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper made the point even more strongly. He described the cyber threat as: A profound threat to this country, to its future, its economy and its very being. These warnings are the latest in a chorus of warnings from current and former officials. Last November, the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, warned that malicious cyber attacks threaten a growing number of the systems with which we interact each and every day--the electric grid, our water treatment plants, and key financial systems. Similarly, GEN Keith Alexander, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, and director of the National Security Agency, has warned that the cyber vulnerabilities we face are extraordinary and characterized by ``a disturbing trend from exploitation to disruption to destruction. `` As Senator Lieberman has pointed out, the threat is not only to our national security but also to our economic well-being. A study by the company, Norton, last year calculated the cost of global cyber crime at $114 billion annually. When combined with the value of time that victims lost due to cyber crime, this figure grows to $388 billion globally, which Norton described as ``significantly more'' than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. In an op-ed last month titled, ``China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy--And Must Be Challenged,'' former DNI Mike McConnell, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn noted the ability of cyberterrorists to cripple our critical infrastructure, and they sounded an even more urgent alarm about the threat of economic cyber espionage. Citing an October 2011 report to Congress by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, they warned of the catastrophic impact that cyber espionage--particularly that pursued by China--could have on our economy and our competitiveness. They estimated that the cost easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs. This threat is all the more menacing because it is being pursued by a global competitor seeking to steal the research and development of American firms to undermine our economic leadership. The evidence of our cyber security vulnerability is overwhelming and compels us to act. As the chairman mentioned, since 2005, our Homeland Security Committee has held nine hearings on the cyber threat. In 2010, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced our cyber security bill, which was reported by the committee later that same year. Since last year, we have been working with Chairman Rockefeller to merge our bill with legislation he has championed which was reported by the Commerce Committee. Lately, after incorporating changes based on the feedback of our colleagues, the private sector, and the administration, we have produced a new version which we introduced today. Some of our colleagues have urged us to focus very narrowly on the Federal Information Security Management Act, as well as on Federal research and development, and improved information sharing. We do need to address those issues, and our bill does address those important issues. Again, as did Senator Lieberman, I commend Senator Feinstein for her contributions in the area of improved information sharing, and Senator Carper for the work he has done on the Federal Information Security Management Act. But the fact remains that with 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, government also has a critical role in ensuring that the most vital parts of that critical infrastructure--those whose disruption could result in truly catastrophic consequences, such as mass casualties or mass evacuations--meet reasonable, risk-based performance standards. In an editorial this week, the Washington Post concurred, writing that: Our critical systems have remained unprotected. To accept the status quo would be an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. The Post got it exactly right. Some of our colleagues are skeptical about the need for any new regulations. There is no one who has worked harder than I have to oppose regulations that would unnecessarily burden our economy and cost us jobs. But we need to distinguish between regulations that hurt our economy and are not necessary and hinder our international competitiveness versus regulations that are necessary for our national security and that promote rather than hinder our economic prosperity, those that strengthen our economy and our Nation. The fact is the risk-based performance requirements in our bill are targeted carefully. They only apply to specific systems and assets--not entire companies--that, if damaged, could reasonably be expected to result in mass casualties, huge evacuations, catastrophic economic damages, or a severe degradation of our national security. In other words, we are talking about truly catastrophic impacts. Moreover, the owners of critical infrastructure, not the government, would select and implement the cyber security measures the owners determine to be best suited to satisfy the risk-based cyber security performance requirements. Our new bill would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to select from among existing industry practices and standards or choose performance requirements proposed by the private sector--lots of collaboration and consultation. Only if none of these mitigates the risks identified through this public-private collaboration could the Secretary propose something different. That is extremely unlikely to happen. The bill prohibits the regulation of the design and development of commercial IT products. It would require that existing requirements and current regulators be used wherever possible. The bill would allow Federal officials to waive the bill's requirements when existing regulations or security measures are already sufficiently robust. As with our earlier versions of this bill, companies in substantial compliance with the performance requirements at the time of a cyber incident would receive liability protection from any punitive damages associated with an incident, giving them an incentive to comply. The fact remains that improving cyber security is absolutely essential. We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before taking action. The warnings could not be clearer about the vulnerabilities and the threat to our systems. Every single day nation states, terrorist groups, cyber criminals, and hackers probe our systems both in the public and the private sectors, and they have been successful over and over in their intrusions. We don't want to look back after a catastrophic cyber event and say: Why didn't we act? How could we have ignored all of these warnings? So I would encourage our colleagues to continue to work with us and to come together and enact this vitally needed legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do rise today to introduce with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee Senator Lieberman, as well as Senator Rockefeller and Senator Feinstein, the Cyber Security Act of 2012. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with my friend and colleague from Connecticut on what I believe is the most important initiative we have come together on since perhaps our 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. I am also delighted that three Senate chairmen who have significant jurisdiction in this area--Senators Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Feinstein--have come together. We have all worked very hard on this bill. I also want to commend the staff of our committee, which has worked extraordinarily hard over several years to produce this bill. Our legislation would provide the Federal Government and the private sector with the tools necessary to protect our most critical infrastructure from growing cyber threats. Earlier this month, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned that the cyber threat will soon equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. He argued that we should be addressing the cyber threat with the same intensity we have applied to the terrorist threat. Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper made the point even more strongly. He described the cyber threat as: A profound threat to this country, to its future, its economy and its very being. These warnings are the latest in a chorus of warnings from current and former officials. Last November, the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, warned that malicious cyber attacks threaten a growing number of the systems with which we interact each and every day--the electric grid, our water treatment plants, and key financial systems. Similarly, GEN Keith Alexander, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, and director of the National Security Agency, has warned that the cyber vulnerabilities we face are extraordinary and characterized by ``a disturbing trend from exploitation to disruption to destruction. `` As Senator Lieberman has pointed out, the threat is not only to our national security but also to our economic well-being. A study by the company, Norton, last year calculated the cost of global cyber crime at $114 billion annually. When combined with the value of time that victims lost due to cyber crime, this figure grows to $388 billion globally, which Norton described as ``significantly more'' than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. In an op-ed last month titled, ``China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy--And Must Be Challenged,'' former DNI Mike McConnell, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn noted the ability of cyberterrorists to cripple our critical infrastructure, and they sounded an even more urgent alarm about the threat of economic cyber espionage. Citing an October 2011 report to Congress by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, they warned of the catastrophic impact that cyber espionage--particularly that pursued by China--could have on our economy and our competitiveness. They estimated that the cost easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs. This threat is all the more menacing because it is being pursued by a global competitor seeking to steal the research and development of American firms to undermine our economic leadership. The evidence of our cyber security vulnerability is overwhelming and compels us to act. As the chairman mentioned, since 2005, our Homeland Security Committee has held nine hearings on the cyber threat. In 2010, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced our cyber security bill, which was reported by the committee later that same year. Since last year, we have been working with Chairman Rockefeller to merge our bill with legislation he has championed which was reported by the Commerce Committee. Lately, after incorporating changes based on the feedback of our colleagues, the private sector, and the administration, we have produced a new version which we introduced today. Some of our colleagues have urged us to focus very narrowly on the Federal Information Security Management Act, as well as on Federal research and development, and improved information sharing. We do need to address those issues, and our bill does address those important issues. Again, as did Senator Lieberman, I commend Senator Feinstein for her contributions in the area of improved information sharing, and Senator Carper for the work he has done on the Federal Information Security Management Act. But the fact remains that with 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, government also has a critical role in ensuring that the most vital parts of that critical infrastructure--those whose disruption could result in truly catastrophic consequences, such as mass casualties or mass evacuations--meet reasonable, risk-based performance standards. In an editorial this week, the Washington Post concurred, writing that: Our critical systems have remained unprotected. To accept the status quo would be an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. The Post got it exactly right. Some of our colleagues are skeptical about the need for any new regulations. There is no one who has worked harder than I have to oppose regulations that would unnecessarily burden our economy and cost us jobs. But we need to distinguish between regulations that hurt our economy and are not necessary and hinder our international competitiveness versus regulations that are necessary for our national security and that promote rather than hinder our economic prosperity, those that strengthen our economy and our Nation. The fact is the risk-based performance requirements in our bill are targeted carefully. They only apply to specific systems and assets--not entire companies--that, if damaged, could reasonably be expected to result in mass casualties, huge evacuations, catastrophic economic damages, or a severe degradation of our national security. In other words, we are talking about truly catastrophic impacts. Moreover, the owners of critical infrastructure, not the government, would select and implement the cyber security measures the owners determine to be best suited to satisfy the risk-based cyber security performance requirements. Our new bill would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to select from among existing industry practices and standards or choose performance requirements proposed by the private sector--lots of collaboration and consultation. Only if none of these mitigates the risks identified through this public-private collaboration could the Secretary propose something different. That is extremely unlikely to happen. The bill prohibits the regulation of the design and development of commercial IT products. It would require that existing requirements and current regulators be used wherever possible. The bill would allow Federal officials to waive the bill's requirements when existing regulations or security measures are already sufficiently robust. As with our earlier versions of this bill, companies in substantial compliance with the performance requirements at the time of a cyber incident would receive liability protection from any punitive damages associated with an incident, giving them an incentive to comply. The fact remains that improving cyber security is absolutely essential. We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before taking action. The warnings could not be clearer about the vulnerabilities and the threat to our systems. Every single day nation states, terrorist groups, cyber criminals, and hackers probe our systems both in the public and the private sectors, and they have been successful over and over in their intrusions. We don't want to look back after a catastrophic cyber event and say: Why didn't we act? How could we have ignored all of these warnings? So I would encourage our colleagues to continue to work with us and to come together and enact this vitally needed legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, I wish to commend Senator Paul and Senator Shelby for raising the issue of extending these requirements to the executive branch. I agree with them. I supported the amendment offered by Senator Lieberman, but I also encourage my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Shelby. It would take in the independent regulatory agencies, and it goes a little bit deeper into the executive branch. So I think both principles are correct--that the kind of disclosures we are going to be required to make should also apply to high-level executive branch employees. I thank both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Alabama for their leadership.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this is a very good amendment that Senator Enzi has offered. It recognizes the fact that we do not control trades that happen within mutual funds. Thus, there is not a need for reporting every 30 days; rather, we should keep the annual reporting requirement. It has been cleared by both sides. I do not believe it requires a rollcall vote. I would suggest that we vitiate any rollcall vote that was suggested and adopt it by a voice vote, with the concurrence of the chairman of the committee.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1485 Withdrawn

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me commend the chairman of our committee, Senator Lieberman. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with him to produce this bill. I also wish to commend the author of the bill, Senator Scott Brown, who was the first to introduce this legislation in the Senate, and also praise the work of the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, for her contributions. The STOCK Act is intended to affirm that Members of Congress are not exempt from our laws prohibiting insider trading. There are disputes among the experts about whether this legislation is necessary, but we feel we should send a very strong message to the American public that we understand Members of Congress are not exempt from insider trading laws, and that is exactly what this bill does. We need to reassure a skeptical public that we understand elective office is a place for public service, not for private gain. Underscoring that important message is clearly the purpose of this bill, and that is why I support it. I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 1478, 1477, 1474, 1476, 1490, 1492, and 1503 Withdrawn

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too am opposed to the amendment offered by Senator Paul. I do think the idea of a certification is a good one, but, unfortunately, Senator Paul's amendment would strike the provisions of the bill that affirm the duty we have to the American people and that scholars who testified before the committee said was necessary.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1487