Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in 1855 in Warsaw, Poland, Blessed Angela founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Felix, an order dedicated to serving the poor, the sick, and the disabled. Today, thousands of Felician Sisters carry on a tradition of compassionate service around the world. Today I wish to pay tribute to one of their number, a remarkable woman in Bangor, ME, the city where I live. Her name is Sister Mary Norberta Malinowski, but she is known and loved throughout Maine simply as Sister Norberta. She has dedicated her life to serving God by serving those in need. Sister Norberta became a registered nurse in 1956 and began her career as one of the first pediatric nurse practitioners at Massachusetts General Hospital. After earning advanced degrees in public health and management, she received faculty appointments at Harvard Medical School and the Boston College Graduate School of Nursing. In 1982, Sister Norberta became president and chief executive officer of St. Joseph Hospital in Bangor. As she prepares to step down after 29 years of service, her accomplishments are being celebrated by the Maine Legislature, the city of Bangor, the Honor Society of Nursing, the Maine chapter of Business and Professional Women, and many others. There is much to celebrate. Under Sister Norberta's courageous and visionary leadership, St. Joseph has been transformed into the largest community hospital in Maine. She was instrumental in bringing many firsts to the region and to the State, from digital mammography and laparoscopic surgery to allowing fathers in the delivery room. The Felician Sisters were founded with a particular focus on serving the Polish countryside. Sister Norberta continues that tradition by leading the effort to ensure primary care services for rural Maine and to organize small community hospitals under the Maine Health Alliance to create a statewide network of care. Sister Norberta's contributions as a health care executive are only part of her inspiring story. She has given thousands of hours of her personal time to charity and has applied St. Joseph's facilities to such needs as providing laundry and food services to the area's homeless shelters. Countless other quiet acts of kindness testify to her caring heart and deep humility. The 16th century Capuchin friar canonized as St. Felix was known in his time as ``the saint of the streets of Rome'' for his daily journeys through the city dispensing food, medicine, and comfort to the poor, the sick, and the troubled. Sister Norberta has lived that legacy through the streets of Bangor and the country roads of Maine, and I join in thanking her for her blessed service.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard from delegating vessel inspection and certification authority to a foreign-based classification society that also provides these services on behalf of the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. I am joined in the effort to close this critical loophole by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Begich. With the introduction of the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011, we seek to end U.S. relationships with foreign-based classification societies that also represent nations like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Each year, non-governmental classification societies conduct more than 4,500 statutory inspections of U.S. flagged vessels to verify that these vessels meet international maritime conventions and national regulatory requirements. World-wide, more than 100 governments have established relationships with classification societies. In addition, the vast majority of commercial ships are built to and surveyed for compliance with the standards developed by classification societies. The relationship between classification societies and the U.S. Government was established in statute in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, when the Secretary of the Department overseeing the U.S. Coast Guard was granted the authority to delegate certain inspection and certification services to the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS, or another recognized Class Society. In 1996 Congress expanded this program to allow foreign-based classification societies to also serve on behalf of the U.S. Government in this capacity. Today, there are four foreign-based classification societies that have established Memorandums of Understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct these inspections on the Coast Guard's behalf. While this act would allow this relationship between the U.S. Government and foreign-based classification societies to continue, it would eliminate a loophole in the law that allows the foreign-based classification societies that represent the United States to also represent the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. Ironically, the current law provides more latitude to foreign-based societies than we allow the American Bureau of Shipping. As a U.S.- based non-profit, non-governmental organization, ABS is restricted from providing such services in Iran under existing Iranian Transaction Regulations. Yet, the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, does not prevent foreign-based classification societies from representing both the U.S. and Iranian governments. With this in mind, my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to prohibit the U.S. from obtaining vessel inspection, certification, and related services from a foreign-based class society that also provides these services on behalf of the Iranian, North Korean, North Sudanese, or Syrian governments. For the United States to maintain such relationships runs directly contrary to the spirit of United States policy. It is important that we all understand the special nature of the relationship between classification societies and our Government and take action to ensure that our Government is represented by classification societies in a manner befitting of our nation's values and consistent with U.S. foreign policy. For these reasons, my colleagues and I believe it is imperative that we amend the law to prohibit this activity, and we urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard from delegating vessel inspection and certification authority to a foreign-based classification society that also provides these services on behalf of the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. I am joined in the effort to close this critical loophole by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Begich. With the introduction of the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011, we seek to end U.S. relationships with foreign-based classification societies that also represent nations like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Each year, non-governmental classification societies conduct more than 4,500 statutory inspections of U.S. flagged vessels to verify that these vessels meet international maritime conventions and national regulatory requirements. World-wide, more than 100 governments have established relationships with classification societies. In addition, the vast majority of commercial ships are built to and surveyed for compliance with the standards developed by classification societies. The relationship between classification societies and the U.S. Government was established in statute in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, when the Secretary of the Department overseeing the U.S. Coast Guard was granted the authority to delegate certain inspection and certification services to the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS, or another recognized Class Society. In 1996 Congress expanded this program to allow foreign-based classification societies to also serve on behalf of the U.S. Government in this capacity. Today, there are four foreign-based classification societies that have established Memorandums of Understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct these inspections on the Coast Guard's behalf. While this act would allow this relationship between the U.S. Government and foreign-based classification societies to continue, it would eliminate a loophole in the law that allows the foreign-based classification societies that represent the United States to also represent the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. Ironically, the current law provides more latitude to foreign-based societies than we allow the American Bureau of Shipping. As a U.S.- based non-profit, non-governmental organization, ABS is restricted from providing such services in Iran under existing Iranian Transaction Regulations. Yet, the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, does not prevent foreign-based classification societies from representing both the U.S. and Iranian governments. With this in mind, my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to prohibit the U.S. from obtaining vessel inspection, certification, and related services from a foreign-based class society that also provides these services on behalf of the Iranian, North Korean, North Sudanese, or Syrian governments. For the United States to maintain such relationships runs directly contrary to the spirit of United States policy. It is important that we all understand the special nature of the relationship between classification societies and our Government and take action to ensure that our Government is represented by classification societies in a manner befitting of our nation's values and consistent with U.S. foreign policy. For these reasons, my colleagues and I believe it is imperative that we amend the law to prohibit this activity, and we urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to GEN James E. Cartwright, who is retiring after 40 years of accomplished military service. Since becoming the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 4, 2007, General ``Hoss'' Cartwright has testified numerous times and provided expert testimony, leadership, and advice to Congress, the President, and the American people regarding our Nation's security and the future of our Armed Forces. General Cartwright hails from Rockford, IL. He graduated from the University of Iowa in 1971 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps shortly thereafter. The general served as a naval flight officer in the F-4 and as a pilot in the F-4, OA-4 and the F-18. His flying career culminated with command of the First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan. The general is also a distinguished graduate of the Air Command and Staff College and earned his master of arts in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College. After an assignment as the Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment, J-8, on the Joint Staff, then-Lieutenant General Cartwright was selected for promotion to general and became the first Marine Corps officer to lead U.S. Strategic Command. While at STRATCOM, General Cartwright led the development of strategies during a rapidly evolving national security environment, particularly in the areas of cyber, space, nuclear proliferation, and missile defense. He reorganized the command to increase interagency cooperation and streamlined operations. As a result of the changes the general implemented at STRATCOM, the effectiveness of the command for the deployed warfighter increased substantially to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. During the last 4 years, General Cartwright has served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of his top priorities has been to reduce the loss of American lives in combat by leveraging technology and streamlining acquisition processes to quickly iver new capabilities to the battlefield. His efforts to lead the MRAP program resulted in a 50 percent decrease in deaths attributed to improvised explosive device attacks. The general can take pride in many other notable accomplishments, including the integration of technologies that enabled the destruction of a failing satellite by a missile for the first time and the successful raid against Osama bin Laden. During his service, General Cartwright took every opportunity to recognize the efforts and sacrifice of the 2.4 million active, guard and reserve members of the Armed Forces and their families. He remains actively engaged for the benefit of our wounded warriors and always remembers the families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on our battlefields. General Cartwright will be remembered for his strategic intellect and his ability to drive innovative change. His tenure leaves a lasting legacy to the Armed Forces. I appreciate his extraordinary service to our country and wish him all the best in the next chapter of his life.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. On August 22, 1911, more than 1,000 people, including Governor Frederick Plaisted, gathered in the small downeast Maine town of Steuben to dedicate the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library. Given that the crowd was far larger than the entire population of the town and the difficulty of travel from the State capital to Maine's easternmost county in those days, this clearly was an important event. Its importance was twofold. First, the people of Steuben worked hard to wrest a living from the sea; it was a life that offered the rewards of independence in surroundings of great natural beauty, but few of the amenities found in more prosperous, less remote towns. Now, thanks to this marvelous gift, they had a center for intellectual and spiritual growth, a place to come together as a community. Just as important as the gift was the giver. Henry Dyer Moore was born in Steuben in 1842, the son of a carpenter and shipwright. From that modest start, he went on to achieve remarkable success in business, with interests that ranged from snuff to railroads and banking. His career took him to the centers of commerce, but his heart never left Steuben. In the century since, the people of Steuben have turned that gift into a treasure. Today, the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library hosts concerts, plays, adult education classes, and many other events. The library resources are considerable and modern, and are a great asset to the entire region, including the students at the Ella Lewis Grammar School. The building is more used than ever, and more beautiful than the day it was dedicated. There is another fascinating aspect to this story. Henry D. Moore had a cousin, 6 years younger. He, too, came from a seafaring family of Steuben, and he, too, went on to achieve astonishing success. John Godfrey Moore was a pioneer in the telegraph industry and one of the most prominent international financiers of his day. Like his older cousin, he never forgot the place of his birth. The land he bought, preserved, and kept open to the public on the Schoodic Peninsula near Steuben is now one of the most spectacular sections of Acadia National Park. One might simply observe that philanthropy ran in the Moore family. The greater truth is that such generosity runs throughout Maine and across America. Achieving success and then giving back to the place and the people that instilled the values that led to success is among the highest qualities of our national character. Cherishing the gift and building upon it for the generations to come is another. That quality is demonstrated today by the people of Steuben, ME, and I offer my congratulations as they gather again to celebrate the centennial of the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Alexander, Landrieu, Pryor, and Toomey. Our legislation is straight forward: it would allow the EPA the time it needs, by its own estimate, to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers. Our bill includes four key provisions. First, it provides the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it will give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline from 3 years to 5 years. Third, our bill will direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, our legislation will help ensure that the rules are achievable by real- world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve Federal regulations. At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in attempting to draft and implement these complicated rules, which if written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs. To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the 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. The EPA's proposed ``boiler MACT'' rules, which would affect tens of thousands of boilers, have been an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Maine. The forest products industry, in particular, is the economic backbone of many rural areas in our country, including in Maine. Mill managers and workers in Maine have expressed their concern to me about the impact of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship. Since these rules were first proposed in April 2010, I have been very troubled that the cost of implementation would be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to industry estimates, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. This is simply unacceptable in this economic climate. Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead dump the biomass in landfills and switch to fossil fuels. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars. My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these new boiler MACT rules in April 2010. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules. It is important to remember that, under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or ``MACT'' rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real world operating practices of the facilities that will be affected by this rule. In March 2011, I also asked Administrator Jackson at a hearing to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits may be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget, such as Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, about the very negative impacts EPA's Boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry. In 2010, the EPA did request more time from the court to analyze and prepare the boiler MACT rules after it received thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns the agency had not originally considered. In response, the EPA appealed for an additional 15 months to implement the rule, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, this plea was rejected by the D.C. District Court, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days. The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. Our bill will provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that businesses in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens. The EPA has claimed that the cost of the final rule has been lowered by 50 percent since the proposed rule last year; however, this is little comfort to manufacturers because the initial rule, according to industry estimates, was approximately $4 billion in capital costs to the forest industry and over $14 billion for all industrial sectors nationwide. The industry experts that I've talked with are very concerned that the standards are being set so high that they are going to have to make a massive new investment at a time when they can least afford it. The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. This bill will help ensure that result. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that minimizes the negative effect on the economy, while helping to protect public health and the environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Alexander, Landrieu, Pryor, and Toomey. Our legislation is straight forward: it would allow the EPA the time it needs, by its own estimate, to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers. Our bill includes four key provisions. First, it provides the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it will give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline from 3 years to 5 years. Third, our bill will direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, our legislation will help ensure that the rules are achievable by real- world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve Federal regulations. At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in attempting to draft and implement these complicated rules, which if written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs. To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the 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. The EPA's proposed ``boiler MACT'' rules, which would affect tens of thousands of boilers, have been an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Maine. The forest products industry, in particular, is the economic backbone of many rural areas in our country, including in Maine. Mill managers and workers in Maine have expressed their concern to me about the impact of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship. Since these rules were first proposed in April 2010, I have been very troubled that the cost of implementation would be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to industry estimates, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. This is simply unacceptable in this economic climate. Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead dump the biomass in landfills and switch to fossil fuels. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars. My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these new boiler MACT rules in April 2010. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules. It is important to remember that, under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or ``MACT'' rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real world operating practices of the facilities that will be affected by this rule. In March 2011, I also asked Administrator Jackson at a hearing to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits may be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget, such as Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, about the very negative impacts EPA's Boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry. In 2010, the EPA did request more time from the court to analyze and prepare the boiler MACT rules after it received thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns the agency had not originally considered. In response, the EPA appealed for an additional 15 months to implement the rule, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, this plea was rejected by the D.C. District Court, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days. The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. Our bill will provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that businesses in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens. The EPA has claimed that the cost of the final rule has been lowered by 50 percent since the proposed rule last year; however, this is little comfort to manufacturers because the initial rule, according to industry estimates, was approximately $4 billion in capital costs to the forest industry and over $14 billion for all industrial sectors nationwide. The industry experts that I've talked with are very concerned that the standards are being set so high that they are going to have to make a massive new investment at a time when they can least afford it. The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. This bill will help ensure that result. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that minimizes the negative effect on the economy, while helping to protect public health and the environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor 2LT Robert S. Emerson who is coming home to Maine more than 60 years after he served his country during World War II. Lieutenant Emerson perished when the B-24 aircraft he was flying in crashed in the Philippines on April 3, 1945. His body was recovered in 1947, and he was buried in Leyte, Philippines. In 1949, his remains were moved from his resting place in the Philippines to Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis, MO. In 2008, his remains were exhumed and transferred to the jurisdiction of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in Hawaii, bringing him one step and thousands of miles closer to his home State of Maine. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the relatives of Lieutenant Emerson's family and the other airmen that served with him on his B-24, the Department of Defense was able to guarantee the return home of this fallen service member. Lieutenant Emerson's long and remarkable journey home is finally coming to an end. On Saturday, July 9, 2011, he will finally be brought to home, to rest alongside his mother and father in Norway, ME. After more than 66 years since he first left home, it is a privilege to welcome home, and honor, a fallen warrior who gave his life in World War II in defense of our Nation. While no words of mine can console the grief that Lieutenant Emerson's family has felt for too long, I know Mainers and the American people are profoundly grateful for his service. Like so many throughout our history, Lieutenant Emerson left the comfort and safety of home to answer the call of duty to our country. He is now among that valiant legion that has journeyed through the darkest valley to a place of quiet waters and now able to rest at home.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator DeMint. Yesterday the managers' amendment, which was agreed to, retained the Senate confirmation requirement for the legislative affairs positions so the only thing we are talking about here is the public affairs positions. Most of these positions in Cabinet level departments do not require Senate confirmation under our current process, and heaven help us if these public affairs people are making policy. They are not. They are just the messengers. We need to reserve the Senate's advice and consent process for policymaking positions or those that have control over Federal funds. Neither of those criteria apply in this case. I urge the rejection of the DeMint amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 511

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last night, the Senate unanimously approved S. Res. 185, a resolution I introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our resolution sends a clear message to the Palestinian Authority that any effort to seek unilateral recognition at the United Nations will have serious consequences for future American aid to the Palestinians. The United States provides nearly $550 million each year in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians. This aid is not an entitlement, particularly at a time when we have an unsustainable debt of some $14 trillion. Rather, this aid is predicated on a good-faith commitment from the Palestinians to the peace process. By unanimously passing our resolution last evening, the Senate has sent an unmistakable message that efforts by the Palestinians to seek independent statehood outside of direct negotiations with Israel do not reflect good-faith actions toward peace. Negotiations have been a fundamental principle of the peace process. It was in September of 1993 when Yasser Arafat committed to Israeli Prime Minister Rabin that outstanding issues would be resolved through negotiations. This principle has also underpinned the Oslo Accords, the Road Map for Peace, and other Middle East peace efforts. We want to see a true and lasting peace between two states--a democratic Jewish State of Israel and a viable democratic Palestinian State. Since 2002, it has been the policy of our country to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but the road to peace is through negotiations, not by subverting them and making a unilateral case before the United Nations. Unfortunately, the United Nations has a well-documented record of being hijacked to chastise Israel, one of America's closest allies. In total, the United States, under Presidents of both political parties, has been forced to veto 11 different U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I am pleased to note that the current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, has vetoed the latest U.N. resolution regarding settlements, which, like Palestinian statehood, is the key issue in the peace process. The resolution passed by the Senate urges the President to maintain this strong position and to announce his unwavering intent to veto any resolution that is not the result of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. I wish to thank Senator Cardin for working with me in drafting this resolution. When Senator Cardin and I first discussed introducing this measure, the Palestinian Authority had not yet agreed to establish a unity government with Hamas--a truly disastrous decision. That action has made it all that much more critical that the Senate be firmly on record that aid to the Palestinians is now in jeopardy. If Hamas continues to reject negotiations or peace with Israel, we must suspend this assistance. During his address before a joint session of Congress in March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succinctly described the heart of the matter. He said: This conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. We must remember those words. We must also never forget that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of more than 500 innocent civilians, including two dozen American citizens. It has been designated by our government as a foreign terrorist organization and a specially designated terrorist organization. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the United States will not fund a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and agrees to abide by the previous obligation of the Palestinian Authority. I urge the administration to suspend aid until such time as Hamas demonstrates a clear commitment to following these principles. Madam President, let me also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, for discharging this resolution so that it could be considered and passed by the full Senate before our Fourth of July recess. The passage of this resolution could not have been more timely. According to press reports, the Palestinian delegation has made the rounds with nearly a dozen delegations in New York this week to build support for their bid to have a United Nations-recognized state. Palestinian Ambassadors from around the world are meeting in July to discuss their plans in Madrid. They have been instructed to cancel vacations because of the importance of this coming period. I submit that if the Palestinians were only willing to invest as much energy into the peace process with Israel as they have into this ill- advised rush to the United Nations, we could see the beginnings of a genuine and lasting peace in the region. I do not know if the Palestinians will have the support among the 192 members of the U.N. General Assembly. However, the Palestinians must understand that the cost of seeking such a vote will seriously jeopardize U.S. financial assistance and that is evident from the 88 Members of the Senate who cosponsored the important resolution that was unanimously passed last evening. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank everybody for their cooperation. We worked long and hard on this bill. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He raises an excellent point. I thank the majority leader. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, who are the chief sponsors of this bill, and Senator Lieberman. I am very glad we were able to work out this agreement and that we will be able to have final votes on the amendments and final passage tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Lubec, ME, is the easternmost town in the United States, the place where the rising Sun first shines on America. That unique geographic location has special meaning in this, Lubec's bicentennial year. Today, as they have for two centuries, the people of Lubec greet every day with the optimism and determination each dawn brings. Located on a slender peninsula that separates Passamaquoddy Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, Lubec is more than a town on the sea. It is a town of the sea. Its 95 miles of shoreline once were lined with cargo-filled docks, shipyards, sail makers, canneries, smokehouses, and tide-powered sawmills. Its namesake, Lubeck, Germany, was chosen to emulate that ancient seafaring city's role as a center of open and free trade. The magnificent sea captain homes throughout the town stand as monuments to Lubec's role as an early hub of America's global commerce. Now, it is a shoreline of aquaculture pens, lobster traps, and urchin and scallop boats. For those seeking a genuine downeast Maine experience, the former ``Sardine Capital of the World'' has become an outdoor recreation paradise, an ecotourism destination, and a haven for artists. The West Quoddy Lighthouse, with its iconic red and white stripes, is recognized the world over. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Bridge, the link to Campobello Island, New Brunswick, gives Lubec an international flavor. The town of Lubec was incorporated on June 21, 1811, but its origins lie in prehistory. For 12,000 years before the first European settlers arrived, the land was home to the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the original ``People of the Dawn'' still are part of the community today. Lubec is a town of the first light and of the first patriots. One early settler was Colonel John Allan who in 1777 was charged by General George Washington with defending the remote yet vital region. He repelled a British amphibious invasion and forged an alliance for liberty with the Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Micmac tribes. Another early resident was Hopley Yeaton, who served in the Continental Navy. In 1790, he was appointed by President George Washington as the first commissioned officer in our young Nation's maritime security and safety service--he is known today as the ``Father of the United States Coast Guard.'' During the War of 1812, Lubec stood strong against a British occupation just 2 miles across the bay. In the Civil War, 200 young men--one-eighth of the town's entire population--answered the call of freedom. Lubec's commitment reaches from the front lines to the home front--during World War II, the workers at the R.J. Peacock Canning Company received a special citation from the War Food Department for their untiring efforts and patriotic service. And the town has found itself on the front lines in the conflicts of our time. On September 11, 2001, Jackie and Robert Norton were flying to California for a family wedding. They perished at the World Trade Center. The people of Lubec will always remember those dear neighbors who, from their beautiful gardens to their community service, gave so much to the town. The spirit of Lubec is exemplified in the life of Myron Avery. From the tiny North Lubec Grammar School and the village high school, he went on to Bowdoin College and Harvard Law School to become a jurist of national renown. He served our Nation in both world wars as a Navy officer. In between, he turned the vision of the Appalachian Trail into reality and was the first to hike its entire 2,000 miles in one effort, from Georgia to Maine. Commitment to service, reverence for nature, and building for the future--that is the spirit of Lubec. On this Fourth of July, Lubec, ME, will hold its Grand Bicentenary Jubilee. It will be a day of great food, music, and fun. It will be a day for the people of this wonderful town to look back at the past two centuries with pride, and to look ahead at the century to come with optimism and determination.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. I have no objection.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally allocated to both sides.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to make sure this has been cleared with the Senator from South Carolina?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just wish to indicate my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. Although it is drafted a little differently than I would have done it, it does address a real problem; that is, when the President--this President or any President--creates a new position within the White House that is duplicative of a Cabinet member's responsibilities, the result is we lose our ability to exercise accountability for the policies that individual comes up with. Let me give you a specific example. EPA is a Senate-Presidential appointee, Senate-confirmed position, the Administrator of the EPA. Yet President Obama created a position within the White House where there is essentially an environmental czar, and this individual--Carol Browner, who has since left, actually negotiated a deal with the automobile industry having to do with emissions. Well, the problem with that is, it is circumventing Congress's ability to hold accountable the person who is involved in making and coordinating that policy. What the Senator from Louisiana is trying to get at is the creation of these unaccountable czars within the White House who are doing the job that is supposed to be done by a Cabinet official, by a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed official. So I support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, my dear friend Senator Lieberman, in rising today in support of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. First, let me join Senator Lieberman in commending Senators Schumer and Alexander for their leadership on this bill. Senator Alexander, in particular, has worked so hard on this issue. In fact, I am convinced we would not be where we are today without his persistent leadership. He deserves great credit for his patience and his dogged determination to bring this bill and this issue to the floor. Senators Reid and McConnell also deserve great credit. They made the commitment in January to make reform of the nominations process a priority. Finally, I wish to recognize Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the committee, on which I have the privilege of being the ranking member. He and I have also been part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort to craft this bill. It is an effort we need to see more often in this Senate if we are to tackle and actually solve the many problems facing our Nation. This bill before us addresses shortcomings in the process of confirming Presidential appointees without diminishing the constitutional roles of the President or of the Senate. The fact is this is a very modest bill that takes limited but much needed steps to reform the confirmation process. When we look at the full-time positions that now require Senate confirmation, this bill would eliminate only approximately 85 full-time positions, a truly modest number. These positions were selected because either they do not have significant policymaking authority or funding responsibilities or report directly to a Senate-confirmed official. To be clear, not included in these numbers are almost 3,000 officer corps positions that would no longer require Senate confirmation under this bill. But let me quickly explain exactly what those officer positions are, because when many people hear the words ``officer positions,'' they are going to think the Department of Defense and that would raise the issue of civilian control of the military. Let me say these are not military or Department of Defense positions. Rather, they are members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps of the Department of Commerce. Apart from these officer corps positions, more than 83 percent of all currently confirmed positions and more than 90 percent of all the full- time positions will continue to require Senate approval under this bill. Let me emphasize that again because, unfortunately, there is some misinformation about this bill. More than 90 percent of the full-time positions in the Federal Government that have required Senate confirmation will continue to require Senate approval under our bill. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the ability of Congress to create new Senate-confirmed positions in the future. It may be that there is a new department created someday or a new position that is very important. The Senate can choose to exercise its will to make those new positions subject to Senate confirmation. The companion standing order reported by the Rules Committee proposes that some additional 240 positions go through a new expedited confirmation process. Although that resolution is not now before us, it will be, I hope, shortly after we conclude our work on this bill. So I wish to explain briefly what the process would be under that resolution. That expedited process would still require nominees to respond to all committee questionnaires and would still provide the opportunity for closer scrutiny of a nominee if requested by a single Senator--any Senator. The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to exercise its constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service, particularly when they are being asked to serve as a part-time member of an advisory board. A letter from three of our former colleagues, one House Member and two Senators, put it well. The bipartisan Policy Center in endorsing this bill sent us a letter that is signed by former Congressmen and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Senator Pete Domenici, and Senator Trent Lott, who of course served as the majority leader of the Senate. Here is what they said, and here is what we heard over and over at the hearing Senator Lieberman and I conducted before our committee. This is the bipartisan Policy Center's conclusion: Many public spirited people are discouraged from serving in appointed office because of the length and the extreme adversarial nature of the confirmation process. This is an issue the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. In fact, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of those hearings, the committee reported favorably reform legislation. A few of the provisions of that bill were later incorporated into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which I, along with Senator Lieberman, authored. Let me give our colleagues some more background, some of which has been covered by the chairman of the committee but I think is important to repeat to counter some misimpressions about this bill that somehow it undermines our constitutional obligations. In fact, the Constitution, in the appointments clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who in his judgment is best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our government. Then we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment to determine if these nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust. But at the same time, the Constitution envisions the appointment of lesser officers by the President alone. Specifically, the Constitution provides that ``Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'' So that process is spelled out in the Constitution. The National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. They differ a bit from some of the statistics the chairman has given because he is using CRS, but what they show is the enormous increase in the number of positions that are now subject to Senate confirmation and approval. When President Kennedy came to office, he had just 286 positions to fill that had the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. But using those titles, there were only 286 when President Kennedy assumed office. By the end of the Clinton administration, there were 914 positions with those titles. Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are between 1,200 and 1,400 positions in total that are appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Too often, that large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in vetting, nominating, and confirming these appointees. I would also point out that there is a great expense that goes along with this process. Having an FBI background check is expensive. Having our congressional investigators do their own vetting process is expensive. And many a nominee will tell you how expensive it is for the nominee to go through this process. The result of the length of this process is that administrations can go for months without key officials in these many agencies. That is why you will find there is bipartisan support from previous administrations urging us to finally tackle this issue. The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until 6 months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place. Our enemies take note of that fact. That is what the 9/11 Commission found. And it creates a national security vulnerability that terrorists can and have exploited. We have seen that in the United States, we have seen that in Madrid, that when there is a change in administration, it is a particularly difficult time, particularly if we do not have our appointees in place. As I have mentioned, Senators Schumer and Alexander have been the bipartisan authors of this bill, which has been cosponsored not only by Senator Lieberman and myself but by members of the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. But I believe, of all members of the working group, Senator Alexander may have the best perspective. In fact, I believe he does have the best perspective because he is one of the few Members of the Senate who have served as a Cabinet Secretary and as a Senator. He has endured the nominations process himself, and I am sure he will explain what he went through in his comments later, but he will talk about how long it was, that it was 9 months before he had a chief financial officer. It took him 6 months, I believe, to be confirmed, and he could not get his team in place because the process was so bogged down. The nominations reform bill we take up today removes only 203 positions out of an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 from the Senate confirmation requirement, and most of those positions are part-time advisory board members. I would ask my colleagues, should the Senate really spend its time and its resources confirming 10 part-time members of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board? I am not in any way denigrating the work of this board or the people who are willing to serve on it. I am just suggesting that I do not think that board requires our confirmation. What about the National Board of Education Sciences or the National Museum and Library Sciences Board, which has 20 part-time members, all of whom have to be confirmed by the Senate? Again, I would point out there is a cost involved for my colleagues, and that involves everyone here who is concerned about the amount of money we are spending in the Federal Government. There is a cost to an FBI background investigation. There is a cost to having a sufficient number of staff to go out and do the kinds of background checks and vetting that we do. There is a cost to the nominees involved, who have to fill out all these forms, who have to be very careful that they are divesting themselves of certain assets. And it makes sense for the Office of Government Ethics, which already has a system in place to check for those kinds of conflicts, to not have its work duplicated, and that is what happens now far too often. This legislation will free the Senate and enable us to focus on those nominees whose jobs are absolutely critical to our Nation, who do have significant policy responsibility, who do have significant control over Federal funds, and that will make a difference. It will also enable the Senate to spend more time on the critical work of how can we best create more jobs in this country, how can we reduce our unsustainable $14 trillion debt, how can we strengthen our homeland security, and how can we conduct more effective oversight of the executive branch. Isn't it a better use of our time to be holding oversight hearings to examine the enormous duplication the Government Accountability Office has found across government that wastes hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars, rather than spending our time worrying about the confirmation of 20 part-time members of the National Museum and Library Services Board? Over the years, our committee has continued to hear from experts on the executive nominations process. In April of this year, we received a letter from the bipartisan Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process, which is chaired by our former colleagues, Senators Frist and Robb, as well as we have heard from the former Director of Presidential Personnel for the Bush administration, Clay Johnson, and the former Chief of Staff for the Clinton administration, Mack McLarty. They wrote--and I think this puts it well--that ``[m]ost everyone agrees the federal appointments process is broken.'' They underscored that the bill before us will help the next administration ``to put in place very early in its first year the . . . people that the new Department heads need to get off to a fast start . . . working effectively with Congress.'' I hope we can agree to undertake the modest reforms we have included in this bill. I hope we do not let this legislation and the Rules Committee resolution get caught up in the turf battles and the power struggles that too often sink good government initiatives in this body. This bill is a step in the right direction and a step we should take together by an overwhelming margin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if they have not already been printed in the Record, that letters endorsing the bill from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Partnership for Public Service, Senator Fred Thompson, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Bill Frist and Chuck Robb be printed in the Record.

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