Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to update my colleagues on an amendment that Senator Udall of Colorado and I, along with several of our colleagues, filed at the end of debate last night. This is the amendment that would prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from imposing needless costly restrictions on the school lunch and school breakfast programs. We debated this amendment at length last night, so I will not do so again now. I did wish to report on some progress we are making in achieving a consensus amendment. First, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and his staff, who have been very helpful to us. I also thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Blunt, and his staff, who have also worked with us. We have worked with the USDA. So this morning I am filing another amendment with Senator Udall of Colorado that makes a few changes in the amendment. It is very consistent with the intent of the amendment that we debated last night, but it does strike the words ``and fruits.'' Since the intent of our amendment was not to change the requirements on fruit servings, I was happy to accept that suggestion from USDA. So I have filed a new amendment. I understand it is going through the clearance process on our side of the aisle, and I hope this is an amendment we can clear and accept very shortly. But I just wanted to bring my colleagues up to date and to thank the two leaders of the subcommittee and to let my colleagues know we are making great progress. This amendment is going to make a real difference to school districts across the country without, in any way, impairing the nutritious meals we want all our school children to receive. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment, No. 804.

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

Ms. COLLINS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for the excellent work they have done and for bringing a bipartisan bill before the Senate. Shortly, Senator Patty Murray and I will do our opening statements on the fiscal year 2012 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I thank Chairman Murray for her exceptional leadership on this bill. It has been a real partnership, a bipartisan partnership, to deal with some very difficult issues. You see that with the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, as well, and with the third bill that is before us today, where Senators Mikulski and Hutchison also worked together in a bipartisan manner. I think this is a template for how the Senate ought to operate, which we need to do more of. I am also very pleased that we are bringing the appropriations bills before the Senate. I am hopeful we can avoid having some huge omnibus bill where no one is too sure of what's in it, who negotiated it, and how different provisions made their way into the bill. That is not a good way to legislate. Instead, bringing these bills before the Senate so the Senate can work its will on these important funding bills is the appropriate way to proceed. I am very pleased to join my colleagues--particularly the subcommittee chairman, Senator Murray--as we begin floor consideration of these three bills. I am very pleased to serve as the ranking member of the Transportation, Housing, Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. Investment in economic development and infrastructure not only creates jobs now, when they are needed most, but also establishes the foundations for future growth. Just as important to our economic future, however, is reining in Federal spending. Getting our national debt under control must be made a priority governmentwide. In setting priorities for the coming year, this appropriations bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment in critical projects in infrastructure and housing programs and fiscal restraint, thereby setting the stage for future economic growth. Our bill makes critical infrastructure and development investments and meets our responsibility to vulnerable populations, such as our homeless veterans. At the same time, this bill delivers on the promise of a responsible budget and recognizes the fiscal reality of an unsustainable $14.3 trillion debt. I can assure everyone that in this bill we are doing our part to establish more sustainable spending levels as quickly as possible. The proposed nonemergency funding levels for fiscal year 2012 are nearly $13 billion below fiscal year 2010. That is a reduction of nearly one- fifth in just 2 years. The significant savings represent an unmistakable movement in the direction of fiscal sustainability. Nevertheless, we have done our best to provide the necessary resources that are needed to support ongoing infrastructure investment and important safety oversight in the programs administered by the Department of Transportation. For example, we provided funding for the TIGER Grant Program of $550 million. This will help to build infrastructure projects across this country that otherwise would not be constructed, and those infrastructure projects translate into real jobs and needed assets for communities across the country. We all know the link between essential infrastructure and jobs in economic development. After all, if businesses can't ship their goods or get their needed raw materials in an efficient, effective manner, then they are not going to be able to create and preserve jobs. That is why I see this bill, in many ways, as being a jobs bill. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration is provided adequate funding to improve the management of the air traffic control operations. There have been troubling recent reports of numerous operational errors by controllers which call into question the safety of our skies over some of our Nation's busiest airports. In response, our bill directs the FAA to implement data-driven performance standards to make certain that air traffic towers nationwide are properly staffed. By setting and enforcing these standards, the FAA can be more confident that air traffic controllers have the skills and discipline necessary to fulfill their critical duties. In addition to improved safety oversight, this bill targets funds to the Nation's most critical infrastructure projects. I mentioned the TIGER Grant Program. In addition, through the Competitive National Infrastructure Investments Program, funding is provided to support projects nationwide that otherwise would not be built. In hopes of making this funding go even further, we have also increased the percentage of funding available to support credit assistance through the TIFIA loan program. On average, a TIFIA loan allows every $1 provided in Federal appropriations to leverage approximately $30 in additional transportation infrastructure investment. That is the kind of innovation in infrastructure finance we need to produce a greater return on our taxpayers' investment. In addition to transportation oversight and infrastructure, our bill also provides critical economic development and housing investments through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As with the Department of Transportation title, balancing key investment priorities with fiscal responsibility required significant and sometimes very difficult reductions in programs that are worthwhile but which we simply cannot afford to fund at the level we would like. Addressing the ongoing challenge of homelessness remains a core priority for our subcommittee. Chairman Murray and I share a commitment to combating homelessness, particularly for our Nation's veterans. I am very troubled by a statistic I want to share with my colleagues. In 1 year's time, there are more homeless veterans than there are individual military members who were killed during the Vietnam war. That is a disgrace. That is something we must change. This bill provides $75 million for HUD's Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program--the so- called HUD-VASH Program--to provide housing assistance for an additional 11,000 homeless veterans. I have seen the result of this program in the State of Maine in a wonderful apartment complex that has been built specifically to meet the needs of our homeless veterans. It is in Saco, ME, and it is making such a difference in the lives of those who have served our country and yet now find themselves homeless. I also strongly believe in the importance of the Community Development Block Grant Program. This is such a popular program in communities throughout our country. It supports economic growth strategies of communities and enables key investments in their long- term economic growth. It is programs such as the CDBG Program that lay the foundation for future prosperity. We were not able to provide as much funding, frankly, for this program as I would have liked and as Senator Murray would have liked. I hope we can continue to work on it once we get to conference. As we head into fiscal year 2012, our economy continues to struggle with high rates of unemployment, with stagnant incomes, and with prices that, in some areas, are starting to rise. Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult for us to fund these programs that are meeting an ever- growing need. For this reason, it has been all that much more challenging to achieve lowered budget targets. To address this challenge, therefore, our bill includes several measures that are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of programs at HUD. This year, we took very seriously the alarming reports on oversight deficiencies under the HOME program. For example, in an effort to ensure that funding for the HOME program efficiently achieves its goal of delivering affordable housing to those who most need it, we worked with the HUD Office of Inspector General to improve the program's regulations to better monitor and assess risks. The bill also directs HUD to work with the Office of Inspector General to identify strategies that the Department can implement to address problems at certain troubled public housing authorities and to hold them accountable for mismanagement of taxpayer funds. With so many important programs under pressure to absorb reductions, it is more important than ever to ensure that HUD's programs are free from mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse. I appreciate the opportunity to join with Senator Murray in presenting this legislation to the Chamber. If there is one theme that runs throughout our bill, it is practicality. We have tried to take a nonpartisan practical approach that asks tough questions but makes sure we are setting priorities for those programs that are most essential to the most vulnerable individuals and families in our Nation. At the same time, we worked very hard to make sure we were funding those programs that were absolutely essential in meeting economic and job-creation priorities. It is my hope our colleagues will support our bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Shortly, along with the Senator from Colorado, I am going to discuss an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill we have offered. But, first, I am going to yield to the Senator from Texas for the purpose of his offering an amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will take a closer look at this bipartisan amendment that Senator Udall and I are offering, with the support of many colleagues. We need to ensure that our schools can maintain the flexibility they need to serve healthy meals at an affordable cost. Exhibit 1 Letters of Support National School Groups American Association of School Administrators (AASA): Represents approximately 13,000 educational leaders including superintendents, as well as school chief executive officers and other senior level Administrators and cabinet members. National School Boards Association (NSBA): Represent public school boards and related school boards associations. Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS): Represents the needs of urban schools and inner-city students. Membership includes school districts located in cities with populations over 250,000 or student enrollment over 35,000. Therefore, CGCS indirectly represents 6.8 million children, 65 percent of which are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP): Represents approximately 23,000 elementary and middle school principals. NAESP indirectly represents approximately 33 million children in grades pre-kindergarten through grade eight. National Rural Education Association (NREA)/National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition (NREAC): These umbrella groups represent the rural voice of America's educators. Members are comprised of state and national organizations, as well as individuals, who are concerned about rural education. Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA): Represents approximately 550 regional service agencies (public multi-service agency that provides support services and programs for schools). They work with schools that represent 80 percent of all public school students in the nation, and are authorized by state statute (none in Maine). Maine School Groups Maine Parent Teacher Association (Maine PTA): Represents approximately 100 local PTA units and 3,500 members in Maine; membership is comprised of parents, educators, students and school advocates. Maine School Management Association (MSMA): This umbrella organization represents the school boards (MSBA) and superintendents (MSSA) in Maine. Maine Principals Association (MPA): Represents approximately 900 members in Maine, including elementary and secondary principals, assistant principals, and other school administrators. State of Maine Department of Education Maine School Nutrition Association Farm/Food Groups National Potato Council Maine Potato Board American Frozen Foods Institute Other Groups Letter from several Members of the Congressional Black Caucus

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss an amendment numbered 757 that I have offered with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Mark Udall, that would protect the flexibility of schools to serve healthy vegetables in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. This is a bipartisan amendment that we are offering. It is cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Risch, Snowe, Ayotte, Wyden, Johanns, Nelson of Nebraska, Mikulski, and Hoven. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a rule that would limit servings of a certain category of vegetables that includes white potatoes, corn, peas, and lima beans. It would limit them to a total of one cup per week in the National School Lunch Program. The proposed rule would also ban this category of vegetables altogether from the School Breakfast Program. Our bipartisan amendment would prevent the Department of Agriculture from moving forward with this arbitrary limitation. I am concerned the proposed rule would impose significant cuts on schools and would limit the flexibility they need to serve nutritious, affordable meals to their students. For those who are less familiar with this issue, let me give my colleagues some background. Current law already requires the School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to follow the most recent dietary guidelines for Americans. Last year, the USDA released the newest dietary guidelines that call for all Americans of all ages to eat more vegetables. The 2010 dietary guidelines list four nutrients of concern. They are potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D. The guidelines state that dietary intake of these four nutrients are low enough to be of public health concern for both adults and children. Since USDA is concerned about a lack of these nutrients in the American diet, it would make sense for the Department to promote good sources of these critical nutrients. Yet the USDA's proposed rule would actually limit vegetables that are good sources of these nutrients. USDA should not limit their availability but instead should encourage their healthy preparation. For example, here are some nutritional facts about potatoes that are often overlooked. Potatoes have more potassium than bananas, a food commonly associated with this nutrient. Potatoes are cholesterol free, low in fat and sodium, and can be served in countless healthy ways. In fact, a medium baked potato contains 15 percent of the daily recommended value of fiber--that is one of those nutrients of concern-- 27 percent of the daily recommended value for vitamin B6, 28 percent of the daily recommended amount of vitamin C. This is a great nutritional bargain at about a nickel per serving. I am going to go on and discuss the rest of the problems with this rule and the solution, but I know my colleague from Colorado is under a time constraint. So at this point I am going to yield to him, my partner in this endeavor, for his statement. Then I will reclaim the floor and continue with my discussion. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The Senator from Colorado.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his excellent remarks. Both of us share the goal that all Americans share for our children--making sure they get a healthy diet. For many children, it is so critical that the School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs provide that diet. Unfortunately, in many ways USDA's rule does not comply with the dietary guidelines which recognize that Americans of all ages tend to be short on two particular nutrients, potassium and fiber, and potatoes are abundant in providing those. When we think of potassium, most of us think of bananas. In fact, as this chart shows, a potato actually has far more potassium than a banana. Indeed, ironically, the Dietary Guidelines for all Americans includes an appendix exclusively listing foods that are rich in potassium. A baked potato is the first vegetable listed because it is such an excellent source of potassium. Potatoes can also serve as vehicles for other vegetables. I recently discussed this issue with the director of school nutrition for two communities in Maine, York and Kittery. Her name is Doris Demers. She told me the kids in her school system rave about the baked potato bar, where they can load baked potatoes with broccoli, shaved carrots, chives, salsa, vegetarian chili, beans, and many other healthful items. Doris also pointed out to me that this is a particularly popular option for students who are vegetarians, and they are seeing an increasing number of students who are vegetarians in their school system. Yet if this rule were to go into effect, a school serving a medium baked potato on Monday would be prevented from serving a full portion of potatoes or corn at any other lunch during that week. Think how absurd that result is. These two vegetables--corn and potatoes--are central to a variety of dishes, such as soups, stews, chowders, and Shepherd's pie. One food service director told me of her school's attempt to get children to eat fresh whole foods rather than heavily processed foods. Thus, she developed a farm to school program in cooperation with a local farmer. The students went out into the field, picked the corn, husked it themselves, and were served the corn for lunch, enjoying the experience of consuming wholesome, locally grown food. Yet, as she pointed out to me, the USDA's proposed rule would prevent her from serving an ear of fresh corn one day of the week and a baked potato another day of the same week. That is an utterly absurd result. That is why people get so frustrated with some of the regulations that come out of Washington. I am also very concerned about the impact on the School Breakfast Program. It is a voluntary program, unlike the School Lunch Program. Some school districts could be forced to drop out of the School Breakfast Program as a direct result of this rule because it could increase costs by up to 50 cents per breakfast. If we start multiplying that across all the breakfasts served by these school systems, we are soon talking about real money. This would be a disaster if schools chose to terminate their participation in the School Breakfast Program for those students who rely on this program. Only Washington could impose a rule that purports to improve school nutrition but actually causes schools to drop out of the very program that is supposed to provide that nutrition. In fact, many of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in the House have written to Secretary Vilsack expressing ``concerns regarding the new costs the proposed rule would impose on schools educating the highest percentage of low-income students.'' The letter goes on to note: For many low-income children, the best, if not all, of their nutrition comes from programs (the USDA) administers. The letter points out that many schools simply ``do not have the resources that may be diverted to meet such large cost increases.'' Research has shown us time and again that eating a healthy breakfast is critical to academic success. Eating breakfast also provides significant health benefits, as we all know. Not eating breakfast is associated with excess body weight, especially among children and adolescents, and consuming breakfast has been associated with weight loss and improved nutrition. I hope USDA will listen to the concerns voiced by the professionals who manage these programs. The School Nutrition Association opposes this restriction and ``believes that consumption of an array of fruits and vegetables should be encouraged,'' not limited. The following organizations are opposing the USDA's proposed rule because it would increase costs and limit their flexibility: the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the Council of Great City Schools, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals. In my State, the Maine Department of Education, the Maine PTA, the Maine School Management Association, and the Maine Principals Association have all expressed their support for our amendment and their opposition to the USDA's ill-conceived rule. These groups represent school administrators, superintendents, school boards, and principals. They know; they oversee the school food service programs, and they understand the difficulties and costs this rule would cause. The American Association of School Administrators, for example, wrote to express support for our amendment saying: The overly prescriptive nature of the requirements for providing fruits and vegetables increases the cost of meals so drastically that school districts implementing the changes, even receiving the higher reimbursement rate, would still be covered for less than half of the incurred expenses. The fact is, the proposed rule would impose significant and needless costs on our Nation's school districts at a time when they can least afford it. Listen to what the cost of this rule is estimated to be by the Department of Agriculture: The USDA estimates that this rule could cost as much as $6.8 billion over the next 5 years. The lion's share of that cost is going to fall on State and local agencies. The costs associated with the proposed rule would also affect working families who rely on the school meal programs. As the National Association of Elementary School Principals wrote me: USDA's proposed nutritional guidelines will force schools to raise paid meal prices. I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations in support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Michael Clarke, a detailee from the Department of Transportation to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted unlimited floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 2112.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff have unlimited floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 2112: Heideh Shahmoradi, Brooke Stringer, Carl Barrick, Alex Keenan, Meaghan McCarthy, Dabney Hegg, Molly O'Rourke, Terri Curtain, Elizabeth McDonnell, Kenneth Altman, Jessica James Morgan Cashwell, Lorinda Harris, Cyrus Cheslak, and Mark LeDuc.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to commend Martin's Point Health Care in Portland, ME, for its outstanding accomplishment of scoring two five-star ratings from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, for its Medicare Advantage health plans. This is truly an accomplishment as a five-star designation is quite a rarity. With fewer than ten plans nationwide receiving this top rating, Martin's Point Medicare Advantage plans are among a very select group. They are also the only Maine health care organization to receive this distinction for 2012. The CMS five-star rating system was developed to help demonstrate the value of Medicare plans and to help ensure that they meet specific quality standards. It provides the nation's nearly 48 million Medicare beneficiaries with a tool to compare the quality of care and customer service that Medicare health and drug plans offer. The rating system considers several quality measures, such as success in providing preventive services like screenings and vaccines; chronic illness management; and ratings of plan responsiveness, care, and customer service. Martin's Point is a not-for-profit health care organization committed to providing the best possible health care experience to its patients and members. The organization is comprised of a multispecialty medical group with nine primary care health centers in Maine and New Hampshire. Martin's Point also administers three health plans: a Medicare Advantage plan in Maine, the U.S. Family Health Plan for military families and retirees throughout New England, and a new innovative program called MaineSense for small to medium employers in Maine. Its Medicare Advantage plans cover more than 12,500 Medicare beneficiaries across the State of Maine. Martin's Point began in the early 1960s in the Camden/Rockport, ME, area when Dr. Niles Perkins obtained federal funding under the Great Society Act of Congress to provide health care services to uninsured or underinsured indigent individuals. These individuals, many of them fisherman and employees of a local fish processing plant, didn't qualify for Medicare, but also couldn't afford health insurance on their own. With the Federal funding obtained, Dr. Niles formed Penobscot Bay Medical Association. Meanwhile in 1982, Dr. Johann Brower, a colleague of Dr. Perkins at Penobscot Bay Medical Associates, wrote a proposal to purchase some of the land and facilities at Martin's Point from the U.S. Government. Despite the fact that several other organizations, including Mercy, applied for the grant, Dr. Brower's application was the only one submitted on time and was accepted. The purchase price was $1.00, under the conditions that Penobscot Bay Medical Associates would operate the facility as a not-for-profit for 30 years. Penobscot Bay Medical Associates, doing business as Martin's Point, became a designated uniform service treatment facility. Maine military retirees were able to come from all over the State to the facility and have their care paid for by CHAMPUS. Access to primary care--family medicine, internal medicine and pediatrics--along with on-site laboratory, dental, optometry, pharmacy and radiology was made available to all patients utilizing the facility. In 1996, under the U.S. Family Health Plan, Martin's Point was authorized as a TRICARE prime provider and awarded their first multimillion-dollar, multiyear contract with the Department of Defense. This all happened under the direction of Dr. David Howes, who became the president and CEO of Martin's Point in 1996. In the 2000s, Martin's Point expanded their USHFP membership--they now have over 35,000 members in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and the northern tier of Pennsylvania Then, in 2006, they launched their Generations Advantage plans. These are Medicare Advantage options for seniors and persons with disabilities in six Maine counties. They have since expanded so that in 2010, their Medicare Advantage plans are offered in all 16 counties in Maine. They serve over 12,500 members. In 2008, Martin's Point became one of the first 40 organizations to become a prototyping organization in the Institute for Healthcare Improvements Triple Aim initiative. In 2009, they affiliated with Bowdoin Medical Group, a large group of physicians with five health centers in southern and coastal Maine communities. This acquisition essentially doubled Martin's Point provider base and patient count-- bringing their total number of health centers up to 9. In November 2010, Martin's Point opened the doors of their new, state-of-the-art primary care facility on the Veranda St. peninsula at Martin's Point. This flagship facility, designed with input from providers, patients and other clinical employees, is a fitting tribute to the patient-focused philosophy of Martin's Point and helps them to realize their unending commitment to providing a better health care experience for their patients. Today, Martin's Point's Medicare Advantage plans are in the top 3 percent nationally based on quality. I am delighted to recognize Martin's Point for this accomplishment, and I wish them all the best in the coming years.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in the wake of another very sobering jobs report. Unemployment remains stalled at 9.1 percent; 14 million Americans are out of work; another 9 million have been forced into part-time jobs because they simply cannot find full-time employment. These challenging economic times demand that Congress and the administration put aside partisanship and work together in earnest to address the prolonged jobs crisis. Many of the decisions that will come before Congress in the next few months will be difficult ones, including those that must be made to restore fiscal order to our Nation's books. But there are bipartisan measures that we know will create and preserve jobs now. We must work together to advance them. One such measure before us today is the free-trade agreement with South Korea. As President Obama stated last week, this agreement ``will make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South Korea and provide a major boost to our exports.'' South Korea is our country's seventh largest trading partner. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that implementation of this agreement would increase our gross domestic product by $10 billion to $12 billion, and annual merchandise exports by $10 billion. The ITC further estimates that the agreement will reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by between $3 billion and $4 billion. An analysis of the Korean agreement conducted by the staff of the ITC at the request of the Senate Finance Committee concludes that the agreement could create up to 280,000 American jobs, including more than 650 jobs in my home State of Maine. Just this week there were announcements of 130 jobs lost at a paper mill in Maine and 65 jobs eliminated at a call center. So these new jobs, potentially 650 new jobs, would be welcome indeed. South Korea is the fifth largest international market for Maine's products. Last year, the value of Maine exports to South Korea reached nearly $100 million, including $31 million in chemical products, $29 million in wood pulp, $15 million in civilian aircraft and engine parts, $7 million in electrical machinery, and $5 million in coated paper and paperboard. Upon implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, more than 95 percent of Maine's exports to South Korea would be duty free. Let me repeat that. More than 95 percent of our exports from Maine to South Korea would be duty free. That means the elimination of these barriers to Maine's exports would expand markets for Maine's manufacturers and agricultural producers, and that translates into saving jobs and creating jobs. Korea is the fourth largest and fastest growing market for American frozen potatoes, a major industry in my State. In 2009, the U.S. share of the Korean market was 81 percent, compared to 2 percent market share for the European Union. But with the implementation of the European Union-Korea Trade Agreement this past July, the European Union frozen potatoes now enter the Korean market duty free. That obviously gives European Union growers a significant competitive advantage over American exporters, who face an 18-percent tariff for shipping their products into Korea. The U.S.-Korea agreement would eliminate this tariff immediately, leveling the playing field for our producers. According to the Maine Potato Board, which has endorsed this agreement, passage of this free-trade agreement is expected to translate into a $35 million annual increase in U.S. frozen potatoes exports to Korea. More important, in the long term it will allow American potatoes to be the product of choice in the Korean market because, as the Presiding Officer well knows, Maine potatoes taste better than those grown by the European Union countries. In all seriousness, we do need to eliminate these discrepancies in tariffs that give our competitors an advantage over our American producers. Exports are essential to a strong industrial manufacturing base throughout our country and in the State of Maine. I want to read an excerpt from a letter I recently received from the plant manager of the General Electric Energy Plant in Bangor, ME. The plant manager had this to say about the potential impact if this free- trade agreement were approved: He wrote as follows: GE's continuing ability to pursue expanding international opportunities for our aviation, energy and financial services exports is critical to our more than 700 workers in the State of Maine. In fact, 100 percent of the new steam turbine units coming out of our Bangor facility this year and next will be exported. That just shows how critical that export market is to maintaining those 700 jobs in Maine. The Bangor plant has, in addition, recently started producing components for gas turbines. To this end, we have invested roughly $30 million in Bangor, to expand capacity. These gas turbines [under current law] face tariffs of 8 percent in Korea. . . . If the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is passed, the GE plant manager in Bangor told me the tariff on the gas turbines produced at the Bangor plant would drop from 8 percent to 0, and that obviously would make those GE products and GE's employees in Maine all that much more competitive. For Maine's wood pulp producers, Korea is already the second largest international market they have. Exports to Korea account for nearly 17 percent of the total production coming out of the pulp mill in Woodland, ME. In an e-mail to my office, Burt Martin, a director of the pulp mill in Washington County, had this to say about the importance of the Korean market to his business operation in Maine. He wrote: Free trade with Asian countries means that we have an operating pulp facility in Woodland, ME. . . . Koreans are good paying customers--high revenue--and they are an important part of our markets. Maine's blueberry growers also will benefit from the phaseout of tariffs on wild blueberry products. While I would have preferred to see the tariffs on blueberries eliminated immediately, the way they are on many other products I mentioned, the tariff reductions that would come about as a result of this agreement will help our blueberry growers compete in an increasingly important market. An agreement will also unlock new market opportunities for Maine's iconic lobster industry. Live lobster exports to Korea currently face a 20-percent tariff. Under the agreement, this tariff would be phased out over 5 years, making it far easier for Maine to compete in the marketplace in Korea. Fairchild Semiconductor in Portland, ME, is another strong supporter of this agreement. The manager of Fairchild cites the benefits of ``tariff elimination, regulatory improvement, stronger intellectual property protection and simplified trade clearance procedures, measures that help streamline customs procedures and help U.S. companies cut down on the costs of doing business'' as advantages that would be brought about by this agreement. The bottom line is, exports to Korea support Maine jobs. Passage of this agreement is critical to ensuring not only that we can expand export opportunities, but also that we do not lose market share in one of the world's largest economies because our foreign competitors are more aggressive in their pursuit of trade liberalization agreements. On balance, I believe the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement is good for America and good for the State of Maine, and I will vote for it. I am convinced the elimination of tariffs will create jobs and help us save jobs at this critical time in our economy. I also plan to vote for the agreement with Panama, a country with which the United States had a $5.7 billion trade surplus last year. But I cannot support the free-trade agreement with Colombia. This was a difficult decision for me to reach, and I have given it considerable study and thought. But, unfortunately, the violence against labor unions continues at an unacceptably high rate in that country. I do appreciate and recognize that the Colombian Government has taken steps to improve in this area, but I think it is simply too soon to declare the Labor Action Plan a success. I think more time is needed to assess progress in this area, and I wish the President had brought forth the two agreements I can support--those with South Korea and Panama--and held back on the Colombian agreement until we have a better sense of the direction of the country and where we are going in making progress with the Labor Action Plan. The benefits of free trade are not spread evenly over all sectors. With any trade agreement there is a potential that some U.S. workers and industries may be harmed. That is why I have looked at each agreement individually over the years. I have supported some, and I have opposed others. Frankly, the criteria I apply is whether the agreements benefit the people of my State and the workers of this country. It is also why I have been such a strong supporter of a robust trade adjustment assistance program, and I have also strongly supported tough enforcement of trade laws to protect U.S. workers against unfair trade practices. I have testified before the ITC in cases involving the paper industry where there has been illegal dumping. I have also been a cosponsor of the bill we just passed yesterday to crack down on currency manipulation by the Chinese Government. But if the United States does not adopt policies to expand trade opportunities in a fair way, we will lose out on market opportunities, and that means we will lose out on the creation of jobs. The jobs that would be created or sustained at home will, instead, be created and sustained in other countries that are aggressively pursuing trade agreements. With nearly 95 percent of the world's customers living outside of our borders, we simply must seize opportunities to expand our exports, to look for new markets for our products. Our competitors in Europe, Canada, and other nations are actively working to tear down barriers to trade and promote their exports. We must do the same for our industries and for our workers.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues this article from the Mountain Times in Killington, VT. The article highlights the outstanding work of the nearly 200 members of Maine National Guard's 133rd Engineer Battalion, headquartered in Gardiner, ME, which deployed to Vermont to help our neighbors deal with the destruction from Tropical Storm Irene. Senator Leahy has told me several times how grateful the people of Vermont are for the assistance and how impressed they are with the professionalism of the Maine National Guard members. All of us in Maine are extremely proud of their outstanding work helping those who needed it most. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following article be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, with unemployment stuck at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence plummeting, we must take action now to help put Americans back to work. Our Nation's job creators have been telling us for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations. America needs a ``time-out'' from regulations that discourage job creation and hurt our economy. If a proposed rule would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or America's international competitiveness, it should not go into effect. Today, I am filing an amendment to provide a 1-year moratorium on final rules that could have an adverse effect on the economy. The amendment is based on S. 1538, The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I introduced last month with 16 of my colleagues. The timeout would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George W. Bush and President Obama. The point of my amendment is to provide job creators with a sensible breather from burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers. This moratorium would also provide us with the time we need to review and improve the regulatory process. Earlier this year, I proposed the CURB Act, which stands for clearing unnecessary regulatory burdens, which would reform the regulatory process in several important ways. Many of our colleagues have also introduced regulatory reform proposals, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on the topic this year. I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee this fall. In sports, a ``time-out'' gives athletes a chance to catch their breaths. American workers and businesses are the athletes in a global competition that we must win. Our workers need policies that will get them off the sidelines and back on the job. Our economy needs a time- out from excessive and costly regulations. My amendment will provide this needed time-out. I am pleased that Senators Blunt, Coats, Coburn, Enzi, Hutchison, and Thune have joined me in offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, which I was pleased to join with Senators Brown of Ohio, Schumer, Graham, Snowe, and others in introducing. This legislation will ensure that the U.S. government finally gets tough with countries, like China, that manipulate their currency to gain an unfair trade advantage. Maine's manufacturers and their employees can compete with the best in the world, but not when the competition is gaming the system to get a leg up. Time and time again, I hear from Maine manufacturers whose efforts to compete successfully in the global economy simply cannot overcome the practices of illegal pricing and subsidies of countries such as China. The results of these unfair practices are lost jobs, shuttered factories, and decimated economies. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that between 2001 and 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced 2.8 million American jobs, including 9,500 jobs in the State of Maine. China's policy of intervening in currency markets to limit the appreciation of its currency against the dollar has played a major role in driving this deficit by making Chinese exports cheaper and imports more expensive. The bill that we are now considering is an important step toward holding accountable countries, such as China, that manipulate their currency for the purpose of gaining an unfair trade advantage. I thank the leader for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Cloture Motion

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in the aftermath of September 11, Americans found strength in each other and in our common values. At a time when polarization and division seem to characterize the public debate on many of the important issues confronting our Nation, including terrorism and border security, the 10th anniversary of September 11 has been an occasion for us to reflect and refocus on the core values that unite us as Americans, including the belief that each person should be free to live without persecution, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. It is in that spirit that I wish today to recognize the work of the Anti-Defamation League; which has carried out important work in opposition to the anti-Semitic sentiments of those promoting September 11 conspiracy theories. As we mark the 10th anniversary of September 11, we must strongly condemn the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame Jews or Israel for carrying out the September 11 terrorist attacks that continue to this day. The ADL also plays an important role in addressing the consequences of hate and fostering a dialog through its recent work with a broad coalition of groups. In its retrospective, ``9/11 Ten Years Later: The Changing Face of Hate, Terrorism and Democracy in America,'' the ADL assesses the proliferation of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories related to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the nature and magnitude of homegrown extremism and terrorism, the growing problem of anti-Muslim bigotry, and the recalibration of the balance between security and individual rights. The ADL also has been a leader in promoting police- community partnerships and expanding training for law enforcement. We face serious challenges in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism. In meeting those challenges, we as lawmakers should be inspired by efforts like those of the ADL to transcend division and differences. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of September 11, it is an honor for me to recognize the work of the ADL and underscore the importance of their message.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on October 16, 1911, the first Italian Catholic congregation in the city of Portland, ME, met under the guidance of Father Agnello Santagnello. Seventy-five families came together, and plans were laid to build a church for the small but growing community of new Americans. Before year's end, just in time for Christmas mass, an old stable was transformed into a chapel at a cost of just under $2,800 and much hard work. That modest chapel was named St. Peter's--the rock of the Church on the rocky coast of Maine. By the mid-1920s, the parish numbered nearly 1,000 families and the thriving Italian-American community needed a larger spiritual home. Father Teresio DiMingo, who took the reins of the congregation in 1927, went house-to-house throughout Portland's Little Italy neighborhood soliciting funds, and found generosity at every door. The new church was under construction in 1929 when disaster struck-- the stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. Father DiMingo returned the contributions to those in need. He matched that act of compassion with determination, and continued the construction with his own life savings. The Church of St. Peter was dedicated that August. That great celebration included the blessing of Father DiMingo's second great gift to his parish--a cross made from fragments of the True Cross. Since that day, worshipers have noticed a curious inscription above the doorway--the letters ``L & L.'' That was yet another gift from Father DiMingo. Those letters represent the Latin words for ``him'' and ``her.'' St. Peter's was then, and is today, a church for families. Today, in this centennial year, the families of St. Peter's continue to build on that solid foundation. Their vibrant church remains a rock of faith. And it grows as a center of charity and caring. In the early 1950s, an Italian priest came to America seeking aid for children orphaned during the Second World War. The generous response from Portland led to the founding of the Italian Heritage Center, which continues to enrich the city with a culture of great food, music, and festivals. That a small fellowship of faith was born in a stable and grew into a something mighty and lasting is more than powerful symbolism. It is a testament to the spirit, the resolve, and the energy of Portland's Italian-American community. On the 100th anniversary of St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, I offer the members of that parish the traditional Italian wish for a long life of health and happiness-- ``Cent'anni!''

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Today marks the end of the 60-day waiting period following notification to Congress that the necessary certifications were made by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding this change in policy. I am pleased that this discriminatory law was relegated to the past early this morning at midnight. I am proud to have played a role in this repeal, and I thank my colleague Senator Lieberman who, when prospects seemed most dire, worked with me to develop a strategy to pass a stand-alone version of the bill that ultimately resulted in repeal of DADT. It was almost 4 years ago when I first asked ADM Michael Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. That was the first, but not the last, time that Admiral Mullen courageously testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee about the need to debate and evaluate the DADT policy. It seemed to me then--as it does now--that our Nation should not refuse the service of patriots who willingly answer the call to arms, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. If individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, to be deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow citizens, then we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military. Since 1993, more than 13,000 men and women have been dismissed from service and countless more have been barred from serving. Society has changed a great deal in the last 18 years since President Clinton signed the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' law, and I am proud Congress took the lead to repeal the law. I thank the LGBT community for their outreach and support of this effort. I especially was honored by the number of servicemembers both active duty and retired who have thanked me for this effort, or who have shared their personal story of how the law was affecting their lives. I recently received one of those stories on a postcard with a stamp from overseas that was signed ``An Army Soldier.'' I would like to have his message printed in the Record because his words represent the sentiment of so many other brave men and women of our fighting forces. His postcard says this: Dear Senator Collins, I will still be deployed in Afghanistan on 20 September when [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] is finally repealed. It will take a huge burden off my shoulders--a combat zone is stressful enough on its own . . . I will repay your courage with continued professionalism. With a spirit of service such as this, is there any doubt we should be welcoming this warrior into our military? I want to thank this anonymous soldier for taking the time to share this important message with me and with my colleagues. Because of soldiers like him, our country remains strong and our military united in a common cause with the freedom of individual expression guaranteed by the liberties they fight to preserve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I recognize the contribution of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program of the Army National Guard. The soldiers in this exceptional program perform military honors at the funerals for Maine's fallen warriors and veterans. They pay tribute to the men and women who have served our Nation, and provide comfort and dignity to the families during their time of loss. On August 27, the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program performed its seven thousandth military funeral, a duty they have carried out since October 2004. Since that time, approximately 30 highly skilled and carefully selected soldiers of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program have performed funerals for all of Maine's soldiers who have been killed in action, as well as funerals for veterans of every era, including one in July 2010 for a Civil War Veteran, William Wallace Clark, whose remains were recovered in July 2009 from an unmarked grave beside that of his wife. The team performed 424 military funerals in its first year, and this year they will perform over 1,300--sadly more than 3 funerals per day as our World War II veterans are leaving us. The soldiers of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program proudly and respectfully render final honors for our fallen heroes, both past and present, from Fort Kent to Kittery, in the sweltering heat or the bitter cold. They never break military bearing and conform to the same exacting standards that are expected of all honor guards across the country, including those at Arlington National Cemetery. The Maine Military Funeral Honors Program provides services to 96 percent of the Army veteran population in the State of Maine, a remarkable achievement unmatched by any other State. This year, the program will likely achieve 100 percent. As they continue to meet the growing number of requests to honor those who have answered the call to serve, I continue to be impressed by this exceptional program's dedication to honoring Maine's fallen Army veterans. On the occasion of their seven thousandth military funeral, it is an honor for me to pay homage to those who provide final honors to the best Maine and America have to offer.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell. Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined. Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is plummeting. Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations. The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of my colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from these burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers. Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts joined me in introducing this bill. Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee this fall. But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or our international competitiveness. Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George W. Bush and President Obama. Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other pending air regulations, 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 that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation and job creation. And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by $4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by a staggering $1.3 billion. That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It says: These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose. The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments. The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the economy at least $100 million. This is nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year of the Bush administration. Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think it is important that I put that on the record. It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between. Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise appropriate oversight. The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs-- jobs our economy desperately needs. During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their decisionmaking. I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated: American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out'' would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying jobs and economic growth. I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this 1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune. I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act, which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that materials of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell. Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined. Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is plummeting. Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations. The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of my colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from these burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers. Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts joined me in introducing this bill. Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee this fall. But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or our international competitiveness. Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George W. Bush and President Obama. Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other pending air regulations, 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 that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation and job creation. And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by $4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by a staggering $1.3 billion. That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It says: These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose. The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments. The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the economy at least $100 million. This is nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year of the Bush administration. Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think it is important that I put that on the record. It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between. Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise appropriate oversight. The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs-- jobs our economy desperately needs. During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their decisionmaking. I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated: American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out'' would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying jobs and economic growth. I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this 1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune. I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act, which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that materials of support be printed in the Record.