Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans are resilient. Throughout our Nation's history, we have stood up to every challenge and we have stood together. At this moment in history, we face the challenge of recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Through no fault of their own, too many Americans have lost their jobs and continue to struggle to find work in this tough economy. Putting Americans back to work is the key to economic recovery and must be the No. 1 goal for this Congress. Today, I offer my own seven-point plan to help us reach that goal. This jobs plan recognizes that small businesses are America's job creators and, thus, our efforts must be targeted toward helping small businesses start up, grow, and prosper. In Maine alone, we have 141,000 small businesses. During the past decade, America's small firms have created about 70 percent of all new jobs. But far too often Congress directs Federal policies and attention toward those businesses deemed too big to fail. Instead, we must redirect our efforts toward those small businesses that are too entrepreneurial to ignore. The plan I am introducing today is based on extensive conversations I have had with small business owners and workers throughout the State of Maine. It also represents a great deal of hard work by my staff. While each State has its own particular opportunities and challenges, the fundamentals of a jobs-oriented economic recovery are similar everywhere. As I illustrate my seven-point plan with examples from my home State of Maine, I believe the Presiding Officer and my colleagues will recognize similarities in their own home States. First, my plan to build a 21st century economy begins with building a 21st century workforce. America's greatest asset is its people. Ensuring that American workers get the education and job training they need to compete in an increasingly global economy must be a top priority. My plan amends the Workforce Investment Act to place special emphasis on job training programs that assist our manufacturing industry. I am tired of seeing so many manufacturing jobs leave my State and our Nation to go overseas. It is important we have a strategy to work with manufacturers, to work with local community colleges and universities to develop the manufacturing base curriculum, job training programs, and research opportunities to ensure this generation and the next have the education and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Some of those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. But others are coming online, and America must lead and Congress must support targeted funding to help provide the resources for this education and training. In addition, we must provide workforce development assistance to those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the closure or realignment of military installations. For example, the State of Maine is expected to lose more than 6,500 military and civilian jobs following the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005. We are losing the Brunswick Naval Air Station in our State. There are many other States, including Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey that are facing similar losses. In Virginia, nearly 40,000 jobs will be lost. In such cases where decisions made at the Federal level directly affect local employment, we have a special obligation to make sure displaced workers have the training and education they need to find new employment in their communities. After all, these communities have structured their economies to support military operations for decades, in many cases. Now that that lynchpin of the local economy is being pulled out, surely we have an obligation to help with the adjustment. My plan would redirect Economic Development Administration funds--EDA resources--to those communities most harmed by these decisions. Targeted Federal funds can also be a catalyst for new economic opportunities. For example, I worked to secure one-time funding for a radiologic technician training program at a Maine community college. This program had broad support from local hospitals and from the college, but they simply couldn't afford the expensive equipment to get the program under way. With that one-time Federal investment, the program is now completely self-sustaining, and it produces between 18 and 20 graduates a year. Job placement has been 100 percent, with graduates earning starting salaries of about $40,000 a year. I am sure similar targeted job training success stories can be found in every State, and we ought to build on them. We must also fix what has not worked as well as it should. Government agencies must provide more efficient and productive services to the American people. The Department of Labor, for example, should reduce paperwork and redtape associated with Federal job training programs. The Department should identify ways it could cut costs by working more closely with other government entities, such as the Department of Education, and with the private sector. The best programs I have seen at community colleges, for example, combine some job training funds with commitments from private employers to hire the graduates and to help shape those job training programs so we are training people for the jobs that exist or that are going to exist. The second part of my plan would encourage innovation in Maine's natural resource-based economy. Nowhere is there greater potential than in energy. I want the United States to lead the world in developing renewable energy technologies, and that is going to require significant private and public investments to develop this technology and to make its deployment affordable. For example, deepwater offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our Nation's electricity needs, and it presents an exciting opportunity to create thousands of much needed, good-paying, and sustainable green jobs. Estimates show that the development of just 5 gigawatts of offshore wind off the coast of Maine--and that is just a fraction of the overall potential--could power more than 1 million homes, attract $20 billion of investment, and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 30 years. Deepwater offshore wind is the key transformative technology that America needs in order to compete globally. Europe, China, Japan--our technology competitors--continue to make far larger investments in offshore wind R&D than we do. I am proud of the work of the University of Maine and the DeepCwind Consortium private sector investment to deploy loading wind turbines, which would be the first of its kind in the world, placing the United States in a position to lead in deepwater offshore wind technology. Federal investments in programs to spur the advancement of deepwater offshore wind is an investment in America's future. Federal and State seed funding is expected to yield up to $4 billion in private sector investment over the next 10 years in Maine alone. With these investments, Maine is well positioned to be a global leader in this promising source of alternative energy. We must not lose these jobs to China, as has increasingly occurred with solar technology. Let's not let it happen with deepwater offshore wind technology. We must also do more to promote agricultural exports. I know this is an issue of great interest to the Presiding Officer. In Maine, blueberries, potatoes, and lobster help create and sustain jobs in our State. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 12,000 jobs. Therefore, increasing exports of our agricultural products could play an important role in reviving our economy. Boosting support for the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Services will help promote our homegrown natural products abroad. This effort to increase agricultural exports could be paid for by strengthening our effort to curtail wasteful agricultural subsidies, such as payments to very wealthy corporate farmers who, frankly, do not need Federal assistance. The corn-based ethanol tax break is another example of an extraordinarily expensive subsidy, costing taxpayers some $6 billion annually, and which has produced a host of problems from higher grain prices to impaired engine performance. We must reevaluate all programs that have not performed as promised and then reallocate their funding to job-creation initiatives and to deficit reduction. Third, we simply must do more to encourage job creation and investment by small business. My plan includes a series of tax reform proposals targeted at these engines of job growth. The tax package agreed to by Congress and the President in December included a 2- percent cut in the employee portion of the payroll tax, but no cut was provided for the employer portion of the payroll tax. With unemployment stuck above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months, we must do more to encourage businesses to hire. When I talk to small businesses, they tell me this is something we can do that would directly reduce the cost of hiring and encourage them to bring on more workers. My proposal includes a 2-percent reduction of the employer portion of the payroll tax on the first $50,000 of payroll for 1 year. This reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax is estimated to lead to the creation of 1.4 million jobs. This will work. As with the employee-side payroll tax relief we passed in December, my proposal would require the Treasury to reimburse the Social Security trust fund using general revenues. Again, the cost of this payroll tax relief can be offset by eliminating the ethanol and other wasteful subsidies and by implementing budget cuts for discretionary spending. There are other provisions in my bill that are targeted toward small businesses. For example, section 179 is a provision of the Tax Code that small businesses have found to be very helpful. It allows them to immediately expense equipment purchases rather than depreciate those purchases over many years. I also propose making permanent the tax provision allowing restaurants to depreciate equipment over 15 years rather than 39\1/2\ years. Think about it. If a restaurant is only renovating once every 40 years, that is not going to be very feasible or attractive to its patrons. The plan would also reduce the depreciation periods on commercial and residential buildings to 15 years to encourage investment and jump- start the economy. We did that back in 1981, and it worked. My fourth point is one that some small business owners, I know, would put at the very top of the list of what we should do; that is, we need to reduce the redtape that ties them in knots. Let me provide an illustration. We need to make sure Federal regulations do not impose an unnecessary burden on job creation. The EPA has proposed a new regulation known as the boiler MACT. This rule, as originally proposed, could cost Maine businesses $640 million to comply with, despite the fact there are less costly approaches to deal with boiler emissions. It also has Federal agencies working at cross-purposes. Here we have the Department of Energy trying to encourage the conversion to biomass boilers at the same time the EPA is putting burdensome new regulations on them. The result in Maine was the Department of Energy awarded one Maine high school a $300,000 grant to help buy a new wood pellet boiler to reduce the school's use of fossil fuels. But because EPA's proposed regulations would have greatly increased the cost of that boiler, the school board ended up turning down the grant. This is an example of where the right hand did not know what the left was doing. My point is that Federal agencies should take into account the impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules. Thus, my plan contains several provisions to help reduce onerous regulations and cut redtape. First, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices. Second, it obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Third, it creates a mechanism to protect small businesses from onerous penalties the very first time they fail to comply with a paperwork requirement as long as no harm comes from that failure. If it is an honest, first-time mistake that causes no harm, why do we want to slap that small business with a heavy fine? That does not make sense. The fifth point in my plan is aimed at our transportation policies. Getting raw materials to the factory or farm and finished products to market quickly, efficiently, and safely must be a priority. But the inconsistent and inequitable Federal policy on truck weight limits on interstate highways provides a telling example of where we are doing the opposite. The consequences are particularly acute in Maine. I have spoken on this issue many times, so I am going to briefly describe it. Maine's businesses and trucking firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage because Federal law prohibits the heaviest trucks from using Federal interstates and instead diverts them to downtown streets and secondary roads. This means, for example, that nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off-limits. Yet these same trucks are permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, parts of New York State, and neighboring provinces in Canada. That makes Maine and Vermont an island of noncompetitiveness. It just does not make sense. The heaviest trucks belong on the roads built for them. In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates. This project was an enormous success. It helped to preserve and create jobs because it allowed our businesses to be more efficient. It lowered fuel costs. It resulted in fewer carbon emissions, and it made our roads safer. Working with Senator Leahy, I am trying to make this permanent. Point No. 6: We must invest in America's future. Research and development investment is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy competitive and to create good-paying jobs. The R&D tax credit provides an important incentive, but it needs to be updated so more companies can benefit from it. And there needs to be more certainty. Just having that tax credit from year to year discourages the kind of long-range planning and investment companies need. My plan includes a 5-year extension of the R&D tax credit. That is likely to happen, but by doing it year by year we create all these disincentives for investment. Finally, the seventh point in my plan would help expand opportunities for small businesses and farmers to do business with the Federal Government. We need to help our small businesses, our farmers tap into markets they have not previously explored. As the former head of the New England Small Business Administration, I know how essential this drive for new markets is for job creation and for our economy. One approach we are going to take is my Washington and State offices are going to redouble their efforts to help small businesses reach the Federal Government because the Federal Government is the largest consumer of goods and services in our country. I know that disturbs a lot of Americans right now, and it shows the size of the Federal Government. The fact is, the Federal Government purchased more than $535 billion worth of goods and services in this past fiscal year. Some 23 percent of that spending is directed to small businesses, and last year the value of Federal contracts to small businesses in my State alone was more than $250 million. If we can expand the opportunity for small businesses to do business with the Federal Government, that is a brandnew market for their products and services. Last year, along with my colleague, Senator Snowe, and in conjunction with the Department of Defense Northeast Regional Council and the Maine Procurement Technical Assistance Center, I sponsored a small business matchmaker conference that brought together government agencies and prime contractors with our small business community to match up the purchasing needs with goods and services. It was a 3-day conference in south Portland. It was a tremendous success. We had about 385 small business owners and representatives from 135 government agencies and prime contractors looking to subcontract work meet face to face, sit down, exchange ideas. Let me give an example of a successful connection that was made. A representative of a $2 billion aerospace company sat across the table from the owner of a 40-employee Maine machine shop with experience in very high quality, high-end custom work. That first meeting led to a significant business relationship that continues to grow. I note that at our conference in south Portland, our total number of registrants was 597 people, and that just shows how eager our small businesses are to expand their customer base. One great benefit of the matchmaker approach is instead of a small business working for weeks or even months to try to find the right person in the vast government bureaucracy or the right prime contractor, our entrepreneurs merely need to sit down across the table with them. It is direct, effective, and efficient. But, obviously, it is not easy to do business with Uncle Sam. The rules and regulations are often strict, cumbersome, and unfamiliar. That is where our offices can help. My plan also calls for Congress to work harder to open the Federal marketplace beyond the Washington beltway to entrepreneurs in every State. That will benefit our job creators and the American taxpayer because there will be more competition. The struggling economy has challenged our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, but that spirit remains strong in Maine, in your State of New York, Madam President, and across the Nation. We will recover from this deep recession, but the recovery depends on the right policies in Washington to encourage the innovative and bold job creators of America. That means helping our small businesses start up, grow, prosper, sustain, and create good jobs. My seven-point jobs plan offers a straightforward path forward for Congress to lead rather than impede job creation at this critical juncture in our history and in our recovery. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Americans are resilient. Throughout our Nation's history, we have stood up to every challenge and we have stood together. At this moment in history, we face the challenge of recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Through no fault of their own, too many Americans have lost their jobs and continue to struggle to find work in this tough economy. Putting Americans back to work is the key to economic recovery and must be the No. 1 goal for this Congress. Today, I offer my own seven-point plan to help us reach that goal. This jobs plan recognizes that small businesses are America's job creators and, thus, our efforts must be targeted toward helping small businesses start up, grow, and prosper. In Maine alone, we have 141,000 small businesses. During the past decade, America's small firms have created about 70 percent of all new jobs. But far too often Congress directs Federal policies and attention toward those businesses deemed too big to fail. Instead, we must redirect our efforts toward those small businesses that are too entrepreneurial to ignore. The plan I am introducing today is based on extensive conversations I have had with small business owners and workers throughout the State of Maine. It also represents a great deal of hard work by my staff. While each State has its own particular opportunities and challenges, the fundamentals of a jobs-oriented economic recovery are similar everywhere. As I illustrate my seven-point plan with examples from my home State of Maine, I believe the Presiding Officer and my colleagues will recognize similarities in their own home States. First, my plan to build a 21st century economy begins with building a 21st century workforce. America's greatest asset is its people. Ensuring that American workers get the education and job training they need to compete in an increasingly global economy must be a top priority. My plan amends the Workforce Investment Act to place special emphasis on job training programs that assist our manufacturing industry. I am tired of seeing so many manufacturing jobs leave my State and our Nation to go overseas. It is important we have a strategy to work with manufacturers, to work with local community colleges and universities to develop the manufacturing base curriculum, job training programs, and research opportunities to ensure this generation and the next have the education and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Some of those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. But others are coming online, and America must lead and Congress must support targeted funding to help provide the resources for this education and training. In addition, we must provide workforce development assistance to those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the closure or realignment of military installations. For example, the State of Maine is expected to lose more than 6,500 military and civilian jobs following the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005. We are losing the Brunswick Naval Air Station in our State. There are many other States, including Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey that are facing similar losses. In Virginia, nearly 40,000 jobs will be lost. In such cases where decisions made at the Federal level directly affect local employment, we have a special obligation to make sure displaced workers have the training and education they need to find new employment in their communities. After all, these communities have structured their economies to support military operations for decades, in many cases. Now that that lynchpin of the local economy is being pulled out, surely we have an obligation to help with the adjustment. My plan would redirect Economic Development Administration funds--EDA resources--to those communities most harmed by these decisions. Targeted Federal funds can also be a catalyst for new economic opportunities. For example, I worked to secure one-time funding for a radiologic technician training program at a Maine community college. This program had broad support from local hospitals and from the college, but they simply couldn't afford the expensive equipment to get the program under way. With that one-time Federal investment, the program is now completely self-sustaining, and it produces between 18 and 20 graduates a year. Job placement has been 100 percent, with graduates earning starting salaries of about $40,000 a year. I am sure similar targeted job training success stories can be found in every State, and we ought to build on them. We must also fix what has not worked as well as it should. Government agencies must provide more efficient and productive services to the American people. The Department of Labor, for example, should reduce paperwork and redtape associated with Federal job training programs. The Department should identify ways it could cut costs by working more closely with other government entities, such as the Department of Education, and with the private sector. The best programs I have seen at community colleges, for example, combine some job training funds with commitments from private employers to hire the graduates and to help shape those job training programs so we are training people for the jobs that exist or that are going to exist. The second part of my plan would encourage innovation in Maine's natural resource-based economy. Nowhere is there greater potential than in energy. I want the United States to lead the world in developing renewable energy technologies, and that is going to require significant private and public investments to develop this technology and to make its deployment affordable. For example, deepwater offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our Nation's electricity needs, and it presents an exciting opportunity to create thousands of much needed, good-paying, and sustainable green jobs. Estimates show that the development of just 5 gigawatts of offshore wind off the coast of Maine--and that is just a fraction of the overall potential--could power more than 1 million homes, attract $20 billion of investment, and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 30 years. Deepwater offshore wind is the key transformative technology that America needs in order to compete globally. Europe, China, Japan--our technology competitors--continue to make far larger investments in offshore wind R&D than we do. I am proud of the work of the University of Maine and the DeepCwind Consortium private sector investment to deploy loading wind turbines, which would be the first of its kind in the world, placing the United States in a position to lead in deepwater offshore wind technology. Federal investments in programs to spur the advancement of deepwater offshore wind is an investment in America's future. Federal and State seed funding is expected to yield up to $4 billion in private sector investment over the next 10 years in Maine alone. With these investments, Maine is well positioned to be a global leader in this promising source of alternative energy. We must not lose these jobs to China, as has increasingly occurred with solar technology. Let's not let it happen with deepwater offshore wind technology. We must also do more to promote agricultural exports. I know this is an issue of great interest to the Presiding Officer. In Maine, blueberries, potatoes, and lobster help create and sustain jobs in our State. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 12,000 jobs. Therefore, increasing exports of our agricultural products could play an important role in reviving our economy. Boosting support for the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Services will help promote our homegrown natural products abroad. This effort to increase agricultural exports could be paid for by strengthening our effort to curtail wasteful agricultural subsidies, such as payments to very wealthy corporate farmers who, frankly, do not need Federal assistance. The corn-based ethanol tax break is another example of an extraordinarily expensive subsidy, costing taxpayers some $6 billion annually, and which has produced a host of problems from higher grain prices to impaired engine performance. We must reevaluate all programs that have not performed as promised and then reallocate their funding to job-creation initiatives and to deficit reduction. Third, we simply must do more to encourage job creation and investment by small business. My plan includes a series of tax reform proposals targeted at these engines of job growth. The tax package agreed to by Congress and the President in December included a 2- percent cut in the employee portion of the payroll tax, but no cut was provided for the employer portion of the payroll tax. With unemployment stuck above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months, we must do more to encourage businesses to hire. When I talk to small businesses, they tell me this is something we can do that would directly reduce the cost of hiring and encourage them to bring on more workers. My proposal includes a 2-percent reduction of the employer portion of the payroll tax on the first $50,000 of payroll for 1 year. This reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax is estimated to lead to the creation of 1.4 million jobs. This will work. As with the employee-side payroll tax relief we passed in December, my proposal would require the Treasury to reimburse the Social Security trust fund using general revenues. Again, the cost of this payroll tax relief can be offset by eliminating the ethanol and other wasteful subsidies and by implementing budget cuts for discretionary spending. There are other provisions in my bill that are targeted toward small businesses. For example, section 179 is a provision of the Tax Code that small businesses have found to be very helpful. It allows them to immediately expense equipment purchases rather than depreciate those purchases over many years. I also propose making permanent the tax provision allowing restaurants to depreciate equipment over 15 years rather than 39\1/2\ years. Think about it. If a restaurant is only renovating once every 40 years, that is not going to be very feasible or attractive to its patrons. The plan would also reduce the depreciation periods on commercial and residential buildings to 15 years to encourage investment and jump- start the economy. We did that back in 1981, and it worked. My fourth point is one that some small business owners, I know, would put at the very top of the list of what we should do; that is, we need to reduce the redtape that ties them in knots. Let me provide an illustration. We need to make sure Federal regulations do not impose an unnecessary burden on job creation. The EPA has proposed a new regulation known as the boiler MACT. This rule, as originally proposed, could cost Maine businesses $640 million to comply with, despite the fact there are less costly approaches to deal with boiler emissions. It also has Federal agencies working at cross-purposes. Here we have the Department of Energy trying to encourage the conversion to biomass boilers at the same time the EPA is putting burdensome new regulations on them. The result in Maine was the Department of Energy awarded one Maine high school a $300,000 grant to help buy a new wood pellet boiler to reduce the school's use of fossil fuels. But because EPA's proposed regulations would have greatly increased the cost of that boiler, the school board ended up turning down the grant. This is an example of where the right hand did not know what the left was doing. My point is that Federal agencies should take into account the impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules. Thus, my plan contains several provisions to help reduce onerous regulations and cut redtape. First, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices. Second, it obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.'' Third, it creates a mechanism to protect small businesses from onerous penalties the very first time they fail to comply with a paperwork requirement as long as no harm comes from that failure. If it is an honest, first-time mistake that causes no harm, why do we want to slap that small business with a heavy fine? That does not make sense. The fifth point in my plan is aimed at our transportation policies. Getting raw materials to the factory or farm and finished products to market quickly, efficiently, and safely must be a priority. But the inconsistent and inequitable Federal policy on truck weight limits on interstate highways provides a telling example of where we are doing the opposite. The consequences are particularly acute in Maine. I have spoken on this issue many times, so I am going to briefly describe it. Maine's businesses and trucking firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage because Federal law prohibits the heaviest trucks from using Federal interstates and instead diverts them to downtown streets and secondary roads. This means, for example, that nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off-limits. Yet these same trucks are permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, parts of New York State, and neighboring provinces in Canada. That makes Maine and Vermont an island of noncompetitiveness. It just does not make sense. The heaviest trucks belong on the roads built for them. In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates. This project was an enormous success. It helped to preserve and create jobs because it allowed our businesses to be more efficient. It lowered fuel costs. It resulted in fewer carbon emissions, and it made our roads safer. Working with Senator Leahy, I am trying to make this permanent. Point No. 6: We must invest in America's future. Research and development investment is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy competitive and to create good-paying jobs. The R&D tax credit provides an important incentive, but it needs to be updated so more companies can benefit from it. And there needs to be more certainty. Just having that tax credit from year to year discourages the kind of long-range planning and investment companies need. My plan includes a 5-year extension of the R&D tax credit. That is likely to happen, but by doing it year by year we create all these disincentives for investment. Finally, the seventh point in my plan would help expand opportunities for small businesses and farmers to do business with the Federal Government. We need to help our small businesses, our farmers tap into markets they have not previously explored. As the former head of the New England Small Business Administration, I know how essential this drive for new markets is for job creation and for our economy. One approach we are going to take is my Washington and State offices are going to redouble their efforts to help small businesses reach the Federal Government because the Federal Government is the largest consumer of goods and services in our country. I know that disturbs a lot of Americans right now, and it shows the size of the Federal Government. The fact is, the Federal Government purchased more than $535 billion worth of goods and services in this past fiscal year. Some 23 percent of that spending is directed to small businesses, and last year the value of Federal contracts to small businesses in my State alone was more than $250 million. If we can expand the opportunity for small businesses to do business with the Federal Government, that is a brandnew market for their products and services. Last year, along with my colleague, Senator Snowe, and in conjunction with the Department of Defense Northeast Regional Council and the Maine Procurement Technical Assistance Center, I sponsored a small business matchmaker conference that brought together government agencies and prime contractors with our small business community to match up the purchasing needs with goods and services. It was a 3-day conference in south Portland. It was a tremendous success. We had about 385 small business owners and representatives from 135 government agencies and prime contractors looking to subcontract work meet face to face, sit down, exchange ideas. Let me give an example of a successful connection that was made. A representative of a $2 billion aerospace company sat across the table from the owner of a 40-employee Maine machine shop with experience in very high quality, high-end custom work. That first meeting led to a significant business relationship that continues to grow. I note that at our conference in south Portland, our total number of registrants was 597 people, and that just shows how eager our small businesses are to expand their customer base. One great benefit of the matchmaker approach is instead of a small business working for weeks or even months to try to find the right person in the vast government bureaucracy or the right prime contractor, our entrepreneurs merely need to sit down across the table with them. It is direct, effective, and efficient. But, obviously, it is not easy to do business with Uncle Sam. The rules and regulations are often strict, cumbersome, and unfamiliar. That is where our offices can help. My plan also calls for Congress to work harder to open the Federal marketplace beyond the Washington beltway to entrepreneurs in every State. That will benefit our job creators and the American taxpayer because there will be more competition. The struggling economy has challenged our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, but that spirit remains strong in Maine, in your State of New York, Madam President, and across the Nation. We will recover from this deep recession, but the recovery depends on the right policies in Washington to encourage the innovative and bold job creators of America. That means helping our small businesses start up, grow, prosper, sustain, and create good jobs. My seven-point jobs plan offers a straightforward path forward for Congress to lead rather than impede job creation at this critical juncture in our history and in our recovery. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 361 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a balanced approach that will give these employees more rights than they currently have without interfering with the essential mission of this law enforcement agency.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment of Senator Wicker to provide additional workforce protections for Transportation Security Officers while at the same time ensuring the management flexibility that is vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA, and thus the security of the American people. Instead of dramatically changing the TSA personnel system in a way that could interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its essential mission, as the administration plans, we should, instead, make some targeted but important reforms in the system to ensure that TSA employees are treated fairly. First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protection Act, which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. Second, we should give TSA workers the right to an independent appeal of adverse personnel actions--for example, a demotion would qualify. What we are proposing is that a TSA employee so affected would be able to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Third, we should make clear that TSA members can, in fact, join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. So our amendment specifically provides that we are not depriving employees of that choice--which they have right now. I have just received a letter from former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley, who was extremely well regarded and served as the head of TSA for 4 years. He expresses support for the amendment that Senator Wicker and I are offering. Mr. Hawley knows firsthand how important it is for TSA to have the flexibility in order to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, and to impending crises. I note this is not theoretical. TSA has used this authority in the past. In 2006, for example, TSA had to respond virtually overnight to the liquids plot to blow up airplanes that originated in Great Britain. Overnight, TSA had to retrain its workers and redeploy them to different airports. This is not a theoretical concern. Another example was the blizzard that occurred in Denver, where TSA screeners had to be flown in from another city to cover the shifts of TSA employees at that airport. This kind of management flexibility was also used in the wake of the gulf coast hurricanes when there were massive evacuations. In his letter, Mr. Hawley states that although TSA's recent determination states that security policies and procedures will not be issues subject to collective bargaining, the dividing line between security and nonsecurity practices ``is not a bright one.'' He makes the same point that former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff made the last time we debated this issue, and that is defining what is and what is not subject to collective bargaining undoubtedly will be subject to subsequent litigation. He further notes: The resolution of these issues could rest with an arbitrator with no direct knowledge of security issues, intelligence, and transportation security. [This could] place the performance of TSA's security mission in the hands of someone who neither has the expertise to make these decisions, nor [a person who] is accountable for them. I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation would help the U.S. Postal Service regain its financial footing as it adapts to the era of increasingly digital communications. The storied history of the Postal Service pre-dates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of ``a line of posts . . . from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia.'' The Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. Today, the Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs approximately 7.5 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, and financial services. Postal Service employees deliver mail six days a week to hundreds of millions of households and businesses. From our largest cities to our smallest towns, from the Hawaiian Islands to Alaskan reservations, the Postal Service is a vital part of our national communications network and an icon of American culture. But the financial state of the Postal Service is abysmal. The numbers are grim: the Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 and recently announced that it posted a net loss of $329 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 alone. The ``Great Recession,'' high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have undermined the Postal Service's ability to remain solvent. Faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service must reinvent itself. It must increase revenues by increasing its value to its customers and by becoming more cost effective. Unfortunately, many of the solutions the Postal Service has proposed would only aggravate its problems. Filing for enormous rate increases, pursuing significant service reductions--including elimination of Saturday mail delivery--and seeking relief from funding its huge liabilities are not viable long-term solutions to the challenges confronting the Postal Service. These changes will drive more customers to less expensive, digital alternatives. That downturn in customers will further erode mail volume and lead to a death spiral for the Postal Service. The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a more customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored with Senator Carper, provided the foundation for these long- term changes, but the Postal Service has been slow to take advantage of some of the flexibilities afforded by that law. And, to be fair, the Postal Service has encountered problems not of its making, such as a severe recession. The legislation that I introduce today would help the Postal Service achieve financial stability and light the way to future cost savings without undermining customer service. The legislation would help remedy an enormous overpayment by the Postal Service into retirement funds used by both Federal and postal employees alike. Based on an independent actuarial analysis, the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid in excess of $50 billion into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and nearly $3 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. Another independent actuarial firm, commissioned by the Postal Service Inspector General, estimates that the overpayment into the CSRS pension fund is even greater, perhaps topping $75 billion. It is simply unfair--both to the Postal Service and its customers--not to refund these overpayments. To address these inequities, the bill would allow the Postal Service access to the amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. It is essential that the Postal Service be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, such as its payments for future retiree health benefits and unfunded workers' compensation liabilities and for repaying its existing debt. I have pressed the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to change its calculation method for Postal Service payments into the CSRS fund consistent with the 2006 Postal Reform law. OPM officials, however, have stubbornly refused to change this methodology or even to admit that the 2006 postal law permits them to do so. This has created a bureaucratic standoff that is unfair to the Postal Service. The OPM holds the life preserver--it could help rescue the Postal Service, but it simply refuses to throw it. This legislation directs the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Service's obligations to the CSRS pension fund. Once OPM exercises this authority, my legislation would allow the Postal Service to use any resulting overpayments to cover its annual payments into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather than having to wait until after September 30, 2015, to access the CSRS overpayment. Additionally, the legislation would allow the Postal Service to access the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, pension fund. The legislation would grant OPM this authority by adopting language, similar to Section 802(c) of the 2006 postal reform law, that allows OPM to recalculate the methodology governing Postal Service payments into the FERS pension fund to determine a more accurate contribution. As with the CSRS overpayment, the Postal Service would be permitted to use the FERS overpayment to meet its statutory obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund. These fund transfers would greatly improve the Postal Service's financial condition. While I was pleased to see that the proposed budget the President released yesterday addresses the FERS overpayment, I was disappointed that it did not direct OPM to update its methodology to allow the Postal Service to access the significant CSRS overpayment. Moreover, I am concerned that the 30-year repayment period proposed by the President to refund any FERS overpayments is too long given the immediate financial needs of the Postal Service. If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Service's obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, this legislation would allow the Postal Service to pay its workers' compensation liabilities, which top $1 billion annually. The Postal Service may also choose to use these funds to pay down its existing debt, which currently is $12 billion. Second, the legislation would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and help prevent the kind of ethical violations recently uncovered by the Postal Service Inspector General. Several months ago, I asked the Postal Service Inspector General to review the Postal Service's contracting policies. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste. In its review of the Postal Service's contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Service's contract management did not protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. In fact, the Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. Of the no-bid contracts the IG reviewed, 35 percent lacked justification. In one of the more egregious examples of waste and abuse, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former employees since 1991. At least 17 of those contracts were no-bid contracts given to career executives within one year of their separation from the Postal Service. Some of these former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay to advise newly hired executives--an outrageous practice that the IG said raised serious ethical questions, hurt employee morale, and tarnished the Postal Service's public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just two months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor. My legislation would help remedy many of the contracting issues the IG identified. Specifically, the bill would direct the Postmaster General to establish a Competition Advocate, responsible for reviewing and approving justifications for noncompetitive purchases and for tracking the level of competition. Earlier this month, the Postmaster General recognized this as an essential position by naming a Competition Advocate. My bill would help clarify and codify the Competition Advocate's role to ensure that the position continues. Under my legislation, the Competition Advocate would also be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service contracting to the Postmaster General, the Board of Governors, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress. To improve transparency and accountability, the bill also would require the Postal Service to publish justifications of noncompetitive contracts greater than $250,000 on its website. This transparency would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and promote competition. To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with personal or business associates for private gain. In a June 2010 report, the IG identified several contracts that a former top executive awarded non-competitively to former business associates, totaling nearly $6 million. These contracts included at least two business associates he hired to manage his personal finances and outside business interests. These sorts of inappropriate, unethical contracts are unacceptable, and this legislation would help prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future. In addition, the bill would require the Postal Service's ethics official to review any ethics concerns that the contracting office identifies prior to awarding a contract. Third, the legislation includes several provisions that would enhance efficiency and reduce costs. While the Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years, more must be done. One such area is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Service's regional structure--which at the time of the report consisted of eight area offices and 74 district offices and cost approximately $1.5 billion to maintain in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. The Postal Service recently announced the closure of one area office, but it needs to conduct a more comprehensive review. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings. The bill also would require the Postal Service to develop a plan to increase its presence in retail facilities, or co-locate, to better serve customers. Before co-location decisions could be made, however, the bill would direct the Postal Service to weigh the impact of any decision on small communities and rural areas. Moreover, the Postal Service would be required to solicit community input before making decisions about co-location and to ensure that co-location does not diminish the quality of service. Fourth, the bill would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Service's financial condition when rendering decisions about collective bargaining agreements. This logical provision would allow critical financial information to be weighed as a factor in contract negotiations. Fifth, the bill would require the Postal Service to provide notice of any significant proposed changes to mailing rules, solicit and respond to comments about the proposed changes, and analyze their potential financial impacts. Mandating that the Postal Service adhere to these notice-and-comment requirements would help ensure that the Postal Service has fully considered the effect that significant changes might have on customers and on the Postal Service's bottom-line. Sixth, the bill would reduce workforce-related costs government-wide by converting retirement eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to retirement when they reach age 65, 5 years beyond the average retirement age for postal and Federal employees. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.78 billion to employees on workers' compensation. These workers' compensation benefits serve as a crucial safety net for Federal and postal employees who are injured on the job so they can recuperate and return to work. But, the Department of Labor indicates that postal and Federal employees across the government are receiving workers' compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. Because of its benefits structure, the workers' compensation program has morphed into a higher- paying alternative to Federal and postal retirement. The Postal Service stands out as an unfortunate example of how Federal workers' comp is misused as a retirement system. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, postal employees accounted for nearly half of all workers' comp benefit payments--about $1.1 billion for 15,470 recipients. Of that number 2,051 were aged 70 or older; 927 were 80 or older; and 132 were 90 or older. Amazingly, three of these postal employees were 98 years old. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood that these recipients will ever return to work? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? This bill reforms the law by converting postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and American taxpayers cannot afford to spend. The Postal Service is at a crossroads; it must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future. It must reject the path of severe service reductions and huge rate hikes, which will only alienate customers. I have already received letters of support for my bill from various organizations, including the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, Greeting Card Association, Magazine Publishers Association, American Catalog Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association, PostCom, National Postal Policy Council, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, and the National League of Postmasters. I expect to receive more as postal stakeholders learn more about how my bill would help the Postal Service transform its operations. The Postal Service must re-invent itself. It must embrace changes to revitalize its business model, enabling it to attract and keep customers. The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011 will help spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain its vital role in American society.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation would help the U.S. Postal Service regain its financial footing as it adapts to the era of increasingly digital communications. The storied history of the Postal Service pre-dates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of ``a line of posts . . . from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia.'' The Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. Today, the Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs approximately 7.5 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, and financial services. Postal Service employees deliver mail six days a week to hundreds of millions of households and businesses. From our largest cities to our smallest towns, from the Hawaiian Islands to Alaskan reservations, the Postal Service is a vital part of our national communications network and an icon of American culture. But the financial state of the Postal Service is abysmal. The numbers are grim: the Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 and recently announced that it posted a net loss of $329 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 alone. The ``Great Recession,'' high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have undermined the Postal Service's ability to remain solvent. Faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service must reinvent itself. It must increase revenues by increasing its value to its customers and by becoming more cost effective. Unfortunately, many of the solutions the Postal Service has proposed would only aggravate its problems. Filing for enormous rate increases, pursuing significant service reductions--including elimination of Saturday mail delivery--and seeking relief from funding its huge liabilities are not viable long-term solutions to the challenges confronting the Postal Service. These changes will drive more customers to less expensive, digital alternatives. That downturn in customers will further erode mail volume and lead to a death spiral for the Postal Service. The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a more customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored with Senator Carper, provided the foundation for these long- term changes, but the Postal Service has been slow to take advantage of some of the flexibilities afforded by that law. And, to be fair, the Postal Service has encountered problems not of its making, such as a severe recession. The legislation that I introduce today would help the Postal Service achieve financial stability and light the way to future cost savings without undermining customer service. The legislation would help remedy an enormous overpayment by the Postal Service into retirement funds used by both Federal and postal employees alike. Based on an independent actuarial analysis, the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid in excess of $50 billion into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and nearly $3 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. Another independent actuarial firm, commissioned by the Postal Service Inspector General, estimates that the overpayment into the CSRS pension fund is even greater, perhaps topping $75 billion. It is simply unfair--both to the Postal Service and its customers--not to refund these overpayments. To address these inequities, the bill would allow the Postal Service access to the amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. It is essential that the Postal Service be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, such as its payments for future retiree health benefits and unfunded workers' compensation liabilities and for repaying its existing debt. I have pressed the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to change its calculation method for Postal Service payments into the CSRS fund consistent with the 2006 Postal Reform law. OPM officials, however, have stubbornly refused to change this methodology or even to admit that the 2006 postal law permits them to do so. This has created a bureaucratic standoff that is unfair to the Postal Service. The OPM holds the life preserver--it could help rescue the Postal Service, but it simply refuses to throw it. This legislation directs the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Service's obligations to the CSRS pension fund. Once OPM exercises this authority, my legislation would allow the Postal Service to use any resulting overpayments to cover its annual payments into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather than having to wait until after September 30, 2015, to access the CSRS overpayment. Additionally, the legislation would allow the Postal Service to access the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, pension fund. The legislation would grant OPM this authority by adopting language, similar to Section 802(c) of the 2006 postal reform law, that allows OPM to recalculate the methodology governing Postal Service payments into the FERS pension fund to determine a more accurate contribution. As with the CSRS overpayment, the Postal Service would be permitted to use the FERS overpayment to meet its statutory obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund. These fund transfers would greatly improve the Postal Service's financial condition. While I was pleased to see that the proposed budget the President released yesterday addresses the FERS overpayment, I was disappointed that it did not direct OPM to update its methodology to allow the Postal Service to access the significant CSRS overpayment. Moreover, I am concerned that the 30-year repayment period proposed by the President to refund any FERS overpayments is too long given the immediate financial needs of the Postal Service. If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Service's obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, this legislation would allow the Postal Service to pay its workers' compensation liabilities, which top $1 billion annually. The Postal Service may also choose to use these funds to pay down its existing debt, which currently is $12 billion. Second, the legislation would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and help prevent the kind of ethical violations recently uncovered by the Postal Service Inspector General. Several months ago, I asked the Postal Service Inspector General to review the Postal Service's contracting policies. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste. In its review of the Postal Service's contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Service's contract management did not protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. In fact, the Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. Of the no-bid contracts the IG reviewed, 35 percent lacked justification. In one of the more egregious examples of waste and abuse, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former employees since 1991. At least 17 of those contracts were no-bid contracts given to career executives within one year of their separation from the Postal Service. Some of these former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay to advise newly hired executives--an outrageous practice that the IG said raised serious ethical questions, hurt employee morale, and tarnished the Postal Service's public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just two months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor. My legislation would help remedy many of the contracting issues the IG identified. Specifically, the bill would direct the Postmaster General to establish a Competition Advocate, responsible for reviewing and approving justifications for noncompetitive purchases and for tracking the level of competition. Earlier this month, the Postmaster General recognized this as an essential position by naming a Competition Advocate. My bill would help clarify and codify the Competition Advocate's role to ensure that the position continues. Under my legislation, the Competition Advocate would also be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service contracting to the Postmaster General, the Board of Governors, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress. To improve transparency and accountability, the bill also would require the Postal Service to publish justifications of noncompetitive contracts greater than $250,000 on its website. This transparency would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and promote competition. To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with personal or business associates for private gain. In a June 2010 report, the IG identified several contracts that a former top executive awarded non-competitively to former business associates, totaling nearly $6 million. These contracts included at least two business associates he hired to manage his personal finances and outside business interests. These sorts of inappropriate, unethical contracts are unacceptable, and this legislation would help prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future. In addition, the bill would require the Postal Service's ethics official to review any ethics concerns that the contracting office identifies prior to awarding a contract. Third, the legislation includes several provisions that would enhance efficiency and reduce costs. While the Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years, more must be done. One such area is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Service's regional structure--which at the time of the report consisted of eight area offices and 74 district offices and cost approximately $1.5 billion to maintain in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. The Postal Service recently announced the closure of one area office, but it needs to conduct a more comprehensive review. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings. The bill also would require the Postal Service to develop a plan to increase its presence in retail facilities, or co-locate, to better serve customers. Before co-location decisions could be made, however, the bill would direct the Postal Service to weigh the impact of any decision on small communities and rural areas. Moreover, the Postal Service would be required to solicit community input before making decisions about co-location and to ensure that co-location does not diminish the quality of service. Fourth, the bill would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Service's financial condition when rendering decisions about collective bargaining agreements. This logical provision would allow critical financial information to be weighed as a factor in contract negotiations. Fifth, the bill would require the Postal Service to provide notice of any significant proposed changes to mailing rules, solicit and respond to comments about the proposed changes, and analyze their potential financial impacts. Mandating that the Postal Service adhere to these notice-and-comment requirements would help ensure that the Postal Service has fully considered the effect that significant changes might have on customers and on the Postal Service's bottom-line. Sixth, the bill would reduce workforce-related costs government-wide by converting retirement eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to retirement when they reach age 65, 5 years beyond the average retirement age for postal and Federal employees. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.78 billion to employees on workers' compensation. These workers' compensation benefits serve as a crucial safety net for Federal and postal employees who are injured on the job so they can recuperate and return to work. But, the Department of Labor indicates that postal and Federal employees across the government are receiving workers' compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. Because of its benefits structure, the workers' compensation program has morphed into a higher- paying alternative to Federal and postal retirement. The Postal Service stands out as an unfortunate example of how Federal workers' comp is misused as a retirement system. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, postal employees accounted for nearly half of all workers' comp benefit payments--about $1.1 billion for 15,470 recipients. Of that number 2,051 were aged 70 or older; 927 were 80 or older; and 132 were 90 or older. Amazingly, three of these postal employees were 98 years old. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood that these recipients will ever return to work? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? This bill reforms the law by converting postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and American taxpayers cannot afford to spend. The Postal Service is at a crossroads; it must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future. It must reject the path of severe service reductions and huge rate hikes, which will only alienate customers. I have already received letters of support for my bill from various organizations, including the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, Greeting Card Association, Magazine Publishers Association, American Catalog Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association, PostCom, National Postal Policy Council, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, and the National League of Postmasters. I expect to receive more as postal stakeholders learn more about how my bill would help the Postal Service transform its operations. The Postal Service must re-invent itself. It must embrace changes to revitalize its business model, enabling it to attract and keep customers. The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011 will help spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain its vital role in American society.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and friend from Mississippi for working with me over the past few days to modify the amendment he originally proposed. I very much appreciated his willingness to sit down and talk about the amendment, and I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Wicker's modified amendment, which provides additional workforce protections for transportation security officers while ensuring the management flexibility that is absolutely vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA and to the security of the American people. Our amendment would provide additional employment protections to TSA employees while preserving the agency's ability to respond quickly and effectively to security and operational challenges. Through our committee's work on homeland security, I have become convinced that the ability for TSA to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to impending crises, even to dramatic weather such as blizzards and hurricanes, is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--the ability to put assets and personnel where they are needed, when they are needed, with a minimum of bureaucracy. The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with certain workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allowed the Administrator to shift resources and to implement new procedures whenever needed-- daily, even hourly, in some cases--in response to emergencies, canceled flights, changing circumstances, or threats to our security. This authority has enabled TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce. I want to point out that this debate is not just theoretical. We are not talking about having some theoretical flexibility. We have already seen the benefits of this flexibility. We have seen exactly why it is necessary. Let me give a couple of examples. In the aftermath of the thwarted airline liquids bombing plot that emanated from Great Britain, TSA was able to move quickly to change the nature of its employees' work and even the location of that work. With the liquids bombing plot, TSA, overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them differently, and was able to do so precisely because of the flexibility of the current law. Another example is the December 2006 blizzard that hit the Denver area. When many local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, TSA was able to act quickly, flying in volunteer TSA employees from Las Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without that ability to deploy personnel where they were needed on a moment's notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential to maintain, and that is what the Wicker- Collins-Coburn amendment would do. TSA also redeployed hundreds of screeners to Houston and New Orleans in response to hurricanes in 2008. These TSOs relieved local employees at those airports so that they could safely evacuate themselves and their families, and it helped to quickly resume screening operations after the storms had passed. These were challenging times for TSA. Evacuations in these cities caused high volumes of airline passengers resulting in the TSOs in New Orleans screening more than 32,000 gulf coast residents within a 48- hour period. TSA's announcement on Friday purports to preclude employees from bargaining over security policies and procedures. But if we look at precisely what it says, it does allow bargaining over the selection process for special assignments and on policies for transfers and shift trading--matters that could require very rapid resolution during an emergency. There will not be time for bargaining over those issues. In addition, the very definition of what constitutes security policies and procedures could be the subject of dispute and litigation. That is exactly the point Secretary Chertoff made in a letter he sent to me in 2007 when the Senate was considering this very same issue. He wrote: Although the administrator of TSA purportedly would not be required to bargain over responses to emergencies or imminent threats, it is inevitable that protracted litigation would ensue over the meaning of these terms. That is exactly what would happen if we allow to stand the decision of the Administrator of TSA. Instead of drastically changing the TSA personnel system in a way that would interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission, there is an alternative. We should make some targeted but critical reforms in the personnel system to ensure that TSA's employees are treated fairly. My point is there is a middle ground that we can reach, and that is what the modified amendment does. First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protections Act, which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is simply no reason to deny TSA employees that protection. Indeed, I would argue it hurts us to deny that protection because if there is a whistleblower at this critical agency who does not feel fully protected and does not come forward, that could hurt our security. So our amendment would codify that coverage and make that protection clear. Second, we should make clear that TSA members do have the right to join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. Some of them have chosen to be represented by a union now. Many have not chosen to be. But they should have that choice. That allows, for example, for them to get representation by a union if there is an adverse employment action. Our amendment specifically provides that we are not depriving employees of that choice. Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent appeal of adverse personnel actions such as removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, reductions in pay or grade, or certain furloughs. The amendment would give TSOs the right to have those appeals heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board. That is an independent board, separate from the agency, separate from the Department of Homeland Security, that sits in judgment of appeals filed by most other Federal employees. So I see no reason TSA screeners should not have that same right. That is an important protection because if a screener believes he or she is being treated unfairly by a supervisor, there is an independent arbitrator to whom that employee can appeal. Here is the bottom line. We can provide TSA employees with important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board and the statutory right to whistleblower protections without disrupting TSA's proven personnel system that has served the agency and this Nation well over the past decade. Previous Secretaries of Homeland Security and Administrators of TSA have described that personnel system in great detail to the Homeland Security Committee and to other entities, in the Senate in both classified briefings and open hearings, as necessary to accomplish the critical goals of TSA. Our amendment would preserve these flexible personnel systems while ensuring that TSA employees enjoy important legal protections available to other Federal employees. I have been trying since 2007 to achieve a middle ground on this issue. Frankly, the previous administration was reluctant on some of the safeguards I have described. This administration has gone way overboard in the other direction, but a middle ground is exactly what this modified amendment strikes. It charts that middle ground, providing significant additional protections and rights to TSA employees without burdening a system that is working well now and that is essential to our security. We simply have to allow the TSA Administrator to retain exactly the same kinds of flexibility to deploy personnel that he enjoys now and that have been used in the past. That is the important point. This debate is not theoretical. Those personnel flexibilities have proven absolutely essential to meet the threat of a terrorist attack and to deal with blizzards and hurricanes. I urge my colleagues to take a strong, close look at the modified amendment. I hope they will support it. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability. Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work. After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine. First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our legislation would permit states to use additional models to more accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically, it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance. Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line as necessary. Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement to the act while still ensuring accountability. Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability. Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work. After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine. First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our legislation would permit states to use additional models to more accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically, it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance. Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line as necessary. Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement to the act while still ensuring accountability. Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements. While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in early 1983, the Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky was in an 8-by-10 foot cell in a Siberian prison when jailers permitted him to read the latest issue of the official Communist Party newspaper. The front page was filled with global condemnations of American President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an ``evil empire.'' Tapping on the walls and whispering through plumbing pipes, political prisoners spread the word. Rather than being demoralized by the criticisms, they were ecstatic. The leader of the free world had spoken the truth. There was hope. By the end of the decade, hope became freedom, freedom for the hundreds of thousands imprisoned in the Soviet gulag and for the hundreds of millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Countless men and women of courage and determination, their names lost to history, stood up to tyranny and won a great victory with a leader whose name will forever be remembered by history. Lech Walesa, the founder of the valiant Solidarity movement, said this of President Reagan: ``We in Poland . . . owe him our liberty.'' In this centennial year, we are experiencing something rare. While many great figures of their time diminish over time, our regard for Ronald Reagan only grows. This cannot be explained by merely citing the qualities for which he was so well known: his confidence in America, his wit, and his optimism. It goes beyond his courage when attacked by an assassin's bullet or, at the end, a devastating disease or even his skills as the ``Great Communicator.'' Ronald Reagan looms ever larger because of his ideas and the enduring convictions that gave those ideas their power. ``History comes and goes,'' he said, ``but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but a blessing from our Creator.'' Ronald Reagan knew that liberty was not a blessing merely to enjoy but one that must always be defended. He expressed his faith in our ability to rise to its defense with these words: ``No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' His optimism sprang from his belief in the nobility of the human spirit. The very ideas that are the foundation of this great Nation were the foundation of Ronald Reagan's character. He became President at a time when America had begun to question its place in the world and the values upon which this Nation was built. He tore down the wall of doubt and reminded us that our many blessings carried with them great obligations. Ronald Reagan was a great communicator because he had something great to communicate: the exceptionalism of the United States of America. The birthday of one who has passed from this life is always a bittersweet occasion as we remember what we had and reflect on what we have lost. I would like to extend my best wishes to President Reagan's beloved First Lady, Nancy, and to the entire Reagan family. Ronald Reagan was the right man for his time. He now belongs to the ages. He is missed, but his ideals will always be with us.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the Federal Employees Compensation Reform Act of 2011. This bill would preserve the essential purpose of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, which is to ensure income for injured Federal and postal workers, while at the same time it would protect the program from fraud and abuse. The Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is known as FECA, provides benefits that serve as a safety net for Federal employees and postal employees who are injured on the job, providing income until the healing process and rehabilitation allowed them to return to work. Obviously, we want to support those employees until they can return to work. That is both humane and just. Over the years, however, this program has unintentionally morphed into an alternative retirement program that is far more financially lucrative for recipients than the standard Federal retirement system. Because of the way the program is structured, for some individuals, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system, tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse and fraud. This program pays monthly benefits to about 49,000 recipients. Those are recipients who have suffered a work-related injury and have been approved for workers' comp benefits. In the past fiscal year, this program cost $2.78 billion. Of that amount, nearly $1.1 billion went to Postal Service employees receiving these benefits. This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented in their own workers' comp programs. As it currently operates, FECA includes a perverse financial incentive that encourages older employees who otherwise would have retired to continue to receive workers' comp benefits. Remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. That is the important phrase--``return to work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying alternative to the Federal retirement system. Federal employees on FECA receive an average of 73 percent of their gross pay. Moreover, these workers' comp benefits are tax free--another substantial benefit. By contrast, a Federal employee, with 30 years of service under the Civil Service Retirement System, would average slightly more than 56 percent of his or her gross pay as a retirement benefit, and these retirement benefits are taxed. It pays then to stay on workers' comp for as long as possible, since many recipients receive more money under that program than they would if they were to retire. Let me again emphasize that these workers' comp payments are tax free--another big difference. In fact, according to the numbers produced by the Department of Labor, nearly 30 percent of the current workers' comp recipients are age 66 and older, while the average retirement age for both Federal employees and postal workers is age 60. With no mandatory Federal retirement age, FECA recipients are allowed to stay on workers' comp rolls for their entire lifetimes, even when there is no expectation that they will return to work because of their advanced age. Some employees have continued to receive Federal workers' comp benefits into their hundreds. For the U.S. Postal Service alone, let's look at the statistics. As we can see, there are more than 15,000 recipients in total. Of those, more than 2,000 recipients are age 70 or older; 927 recipients are age 80 or older; 132 recipients are age 90 or older; and astonishingly enough, 3 postal employees receiving workers' comp are age 98 or older. Mr. President, it is obvious these workers are not going back to work. They clearly should be transitioned to the retirement system. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood at all these recipients are ever going to return to the workforce? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? Think how unfair that is to the worker who does retire, say, at age 65 and gets a lesser amount. Right now, the way the system is structured it does not encourage people to go back to work or to transfer to retirement at an age when most of their fellow workers would have retired. To prevent this continued abuse, my bill would convert retirement-eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65. Now, that is generous, Mr. President, because we know the average retirement age is actually 60. I would choose age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer cannot afford to spend. It is also a matter of fairness, Mr. President. But we must also examine other elements of the FECA program to determine whether there are some additional improvements that are necessary. Unlike many State programs, the Federal workers' compensation program has no cap nor time limits on benefits. Moreover, the Federal Department of Labor acknowledges a 2- to 3-percent fraud rate in the program. I suspect it may be even higher. We need to reduce this rate of fraud by examining whether the medical certification requirements and other internal controls should be strengthened. Are we doing medical reviews to see if these individuals could go back to work? For example, a former postal worker was sentenced just a week or so ago to 5 months in jail after pleading guilty to workers' compensation fraud. The employee claimed he was unable to walk from his parked car to the post office. But at the same time he was receiving tax-free workers' compensation benefits, he was also operating a snow removal and lawn care business. In addition, about 100 other claimants per year are prosecuted by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General because they received workers' compensation and their retirement pay. These are the so-called ``double-dippers.'' Mr. President, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, I have asked the Government Accountability Office, along with Senator Coburn and Senator McCaskill, to audit the FECA program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard Federal retirement age, and how the Federal program compares to State workers' compensation best practices. I expect these findings will lead to additional reform proposals as the bill proceeds through the Senate. I also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the Federal Employees Retirement System, the FERS system, as opposed to the old Civil Service Retirement System are necessary to make sure that workers' compensation recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to FERS retirement benefits under this bill. For example, this may require the Department of Labor to administer the Thrift Savings Plan contributions for recipients or to require Social Security contributions from workers' compensation recipients. What is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. The program is costing too much, injured workers are not being monitored sufficiently and helped to return to productive work, recipients who should be in the retirement system are instead receiving tax-free benefits, and some agencies have high claim rates, suggesting that safety improvements are needed. For the sake of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we must reform this program now. Not doing so is an affront to the thousands of Federal employees who enter the retirement system. It is a disservice to those Federal and postal employees who truly need workers' compensation benefits, and it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 261 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the Federal Employees Compensation Reform Act of 2011. This bill would preserve the essential purpose of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, which is to ensure income for injured Federal and postal workers, while at the same time it would protect the program from fraud and abuse. The Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is known as FECA, provides benefits that serve as a safety net for Federal employees and postal employees who are injured on the job, providing income until the healing process and rehabilitation allowed them to return to work. Obviously, we want to support those employees until they can return to work. That is both humane and just. Over the years, however, this program has unintentionally morphed into an alternative retirement program that is far more financially lucrative for recipients than the standard Federal retirement system. Because of the way the program is structured, for some individuals, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system, tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse and fraud. This program pays monthly benefits to about 49,000 recipients. Those are recipients who have suffered a work-related injury and have been approved for workers' comp benefits. In the past fiscal year, this program cost $2.78 billion. Of that amount, nearly $1.1 billion went to Postal Service employees receiving these benefits. This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented in their own workers' comp programs. As it currently operates, FECA includes a perverse financial incentive that encourages older employees who otherwise would have retired to continue to receive workers' comp benefits. Remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. That is the important phrase--``return to work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying alternative to the Federal retirement system. Federal employees on FECA receive an average of 73 percent of their gross pay. Moreover, these workers' comp benefits are tax free--another substantial benefit. By contrast, a Federal employee, with 30 years of service under the Civil Service Retirement System, would average slightly more than 56 percent of his or her gross pay as a retirement benefit, and these retirement benefits are taxed. It pays then to stay on workers' comp for as long as possible, since many recipients receive more money under that program than they would if they were to retire. Let me again emphasize that these workers' comp payments are tax free--another big difference. In fact, according to the numbers produced by the Department of Labor, nearly 30 percent of the current workers' comp recipients are age 66 and older, while the average retirement age for both Federal employees and postal workers is age 60. With no mandatory Federal retirement age, FECA recipients are allowed to stay on workers' comp rolls for their entire lifetimes, even when there is no expectation that they will return to work because of their advanced age. Some employees have continued to receive Federal workers' comp benefits into their hundreds. For the U.S. Postal Service alone, let's look at the statistics. As we can see, there are more than 15,000 recipients in total. Of those, more than 2,000 recipients are age 70 or older; 927 recipients are age 80 or older; 132 recipients are age 90 or older; and astonishingly enough, 3 postal employees receiving workers' comp are age 98 or older. Mr. President, it is obvious these workers are not going back to work. They clearly should be transitioned to the retirement system. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood at all these recipients are ever going to return to the workforce? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? Think how unfair that is to the worker who does retire, say, at age 65 and gets a lesser amount. Right now, the way the system is structured it does not encourage people to go back to work or to transfer to retirement at an age when most of their fellow workers would have retired. To prevent this continued abuse, my bill would convert retirement-eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65. Now, that is generous, Mr. President, because we know the average retirement age is actually 60. I would choose age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer cannot afford to spend. It is also a matter of fairness, Mr. President. But we must also examine other elements of the FECA program to determine whether there are some additional improvements that are necessary. Unlike many State programs, the Federal workers' compensation program has no cap nor time limits on benefits. Moreover, the Federal Department of Labor acknowledges a 2- to 3-percent fraud rate in the program. I suspect it may be even higher. We need to reduce this rate of fraud by examining whether the medical certification requirements and other internal controls should be strengthened. Are we doing medical reviews to see if these individuals could go back to work? For example, a former postal worker was sentenced just a week or so ago to 5 months in jail after pleading guilty to workers' compensation fraud. The employee claimed he was unable to walk from his parked car to the post office. But at the same time he was receiving tax-free workers' compensation benefits, he was also operating a snow removal and lawn care business. In addition, about 100 other claimants per year are prosecuted by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General because they received workers' compensation and their retirement pay. These are the so-called ``double-dippers.'' Mr. President, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, I have asked the Government Accountability Office, along with Senator Coburn and Senator McCaskill, to audit the FECA program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard Federal retirement age, and how the Federal program compares to State workers' compensation best practices. I expect these findings will lead to additional reform proposals as the bill proceeds through the Senate. I also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the Federal Employees Retirement System, the FERS system, as opposed to the old Civil Service Retirement System are necessary to make sure that workers' compensation recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to FERS retirement benefits under this bill. For example, this may require the Department of Labor to administer the Thrift Savings Plan contributions for recipients or to require Social Security contributions from workers' compensation recipients. What is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. The program is costing too much, injured workers are not being monitored sufficiently and helped to return to productive work, recipients who should be in the retirement system are instead receiving tax-free benefits, and some agencies have high claim rates, suggesting that safety improvements are needed. For the sake of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we must reform this program now. Not doing so is an affront to the thousands of Federal employees who enter the retirement system. It is a disservice to those Federal and postal employees who truly need workers' compensation benefits, and it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law. Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form. The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away. A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility. The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Lieberman in introducing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011, also known as the SOAR Act. This important piece of legislation will reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has successfully provided additional educational options for some of our nation's most at-risk children. Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is one of the highest in the nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools. Approximately 6 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a unique ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress and the Bush administration then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education. In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall, students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships--the equivalent of an additional three months of learning. Studies have also shown that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which runs the program. In May 2009, Chairman Lieberman and I held a compelling hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where we heard the personal success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real-world implications of discontinuing the program. Ronald Holassie, then a junior at Archbishop Carroll, gave compelling testimony about the impact this program has had on his life. His mother was so concerned about the education he had been receiving that she was considering sending him to school in her home country of Trinidad, until she found out about the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Ronald said something very near the end of our hearing in response to a question from a member of the Committee that I also found enlightening. He said, ``DC schools didn't get bad over night, and they aren't going to get better overnight either.'' The program is critical to that improvement. Based on what we have learned over the past few years, Chairman Lieberman and I drafted a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This effort is also being replicated in the House with a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner. One of the reasons that I so strongly believe in the three-sector approach to funding for education in the District is that it reaffirms Congress' commitment to improving educational outcomes and opportunities, not just for the students attending private schools, but also for all students in the District--including those attending DC public and charter schools. I know that each of us shares the common goal of ensuring that all students in the District are receiving the highest quality education, which is why it is incumbent upon us to act and to act now to fully reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Lieberman in introducing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011, also known as the SOAR Act. This important piece of legislation will reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has successfully provided additional educational options for some of our nation's most at-risk children. Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is one of the highest in the nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools. Approximately 6 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a unique ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress and the Bush administration then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education. In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall, students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships--the equivalent of an additional three months of learning. Studies have also shown that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which runs the program. In May 2009, Chairman Lieberman and I held a compelling hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where we heard the personal success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real-world implications of discontinuing the program. Ronald Holassie, then a junior at Archbishop Carroll, gave compelling testimony about the impact this program has had on his life. His mother was so concerned about the education he had been receiving that she was considering sending him to school in her home country of Trinidad, until she found out about the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Ronald said something very near the end of our hearing in response to a question from a member of the Committee that I also found enlightening. He said, ``DC schools didn't get bad over night, and they aren't going to get better overnight either.'' The program is critical to that improvement. Based on what we have learned over the past few years, Chairman Lieberman and I drafted a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This effort is also being replicated in the House with a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner. One of the reasons that I so strongly believe in the three-sector approach to funding for education in the District is that it reaffirms Congress' commitment to improving educational outcomes and opportunities, not just for the students attending private schools, but also for all students in the District--including those attending DC public and charter schools. I know that each of us shares the common goal of ensuring that all students in the District are receiving the highest quality education, which is why it is incumbent upon us to act and to act now to fully reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, improving public safety, growing our economy, increasing energy independence, and protecting the environment have always been among my top priorities as a Senator. Today, the very first bill I am introducing in this new Congress will advance all of those goals by allowing the heaviest trucks to travel on our Federal interstate highways in Maine rather than being forced to use secondary roads and downtown streets. I am delighted to have the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, as my Democratic cosponsor, and my good friend and colleague from Maine, Olympia Snowe, also as an original cosponsor. Vermont has the same problem as we do in Maine. Thus the bill I am introducing applies to our two States. In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project that allowed trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates--I-95, 195, 295, and 395. According to the results of a preliminary study by the Maine Department of Transportation, this pilot project, which ran until mid-December of last year, helped to preserve and create jobs by allowing Maine's businesses to receive raw materials and to ship their products more economically. Also important, the pilot program improved safety, saved energy, and reduced carbon emissions. Let me give a specific example. On a trip from Hampden to Houlton, ME, the benefits are obvious. A truck traveling on I-95 rather than on Route 2 avoids more than 270 intersections, 9 school crossings, 30 traffic lights, and 86 crosswalks. In addition, the driver also saves more than $30 on fuel. Given the cost of diesel, it is probably even higher than that now. Additionally, 50 minutes is saved by traveling on Interstate 95 rather than on the secondary road of Route 2. Unfortunately, despite the clear success of this pilot project and the strong support of the administration and many of my colleagues in the Senate, the House of Representatives failed to include my provision making the pilot permanent in the Federal funding bill. As a result, for both Maine and Vermont, the program expired on December 17 and the heavy trucks are once again unable to use our most modern, safe, and efficient highways. It is important to emphasize that our legislation does not increase the size or the weight of trucks in our States. Maine law already allows trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to operate on State and municipal roads. Heavy trucks already operate on some 22,500 miles of non-Interstate roads in Maine, in addition to the approximately 167 miles of the Maine turnpike. But the nearly 260 miles of non-turnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off limits. This simply makes no sense. Furthermore, trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and the neighboring provinces in Canada. So that puts Maine and Vermont at a distinct competitive disadvantage. All around us, the States and our Canadian counterparts allow the heavier trucks to use the Federal interstates, but unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been excluded. That is why my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has joined me in this effort to help provide a level playing field for our States. Here are a few more important points about our bill. The 100,000-pound trucks are no larger or wider than 80,000-pound trucks. This change would remove an estimated 7.8 million truck miles from our local roads and streets. Increasing the truck payloads by 35 percent would reduce the overall number of trucks needed. In addition to saving fuel by traveling fewer miles, the steady pace of interstate driving improves the fuel economy of trucks by 14 to 21 percent. And the Maine Department of Transportation's engineers say they are confident our interstate bridges are safe and can handle the additional weight in the State of Maine. Countless Maine small business owners have told me how this change would improve their competitiveness. For example, at a recent press conference, Keith Van Scotter discussed the savings his company accrued under the pilot project. Under the pilot project, his company Lincoln Paper and Tissue was able to save 1.1 million billable truck miles, a 28 percent decrease from the year before. These savings are the equivalent of the company being 220 miles closer to its primary market. Also, the owner-operator of a logging business in Penobscot County said that being able to transport his pulpwood to the mill on I-95 rather than on secondary roads would save his company at least 118 gallons of fuel each week. That benefits not only this small business but also our Nation as we seek to reduce our overall fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. The pilot program has also made a dramatic improvement for some of our communities. According to the Maine DOT, before the pilot program began last December of 2009, more than 200 heavy trucks heading north on Route 201 crawled through downtown Vassalboro a small town of about 4,000--each day even though I-95 runs parallel just a few miles away. During the span of the pilot program, the number of northbound trucks on Route 201 decreased by roughly 90 percent. These trucks were using the interstate where they belong. I will tell you that since the pilot project expired, so many of my constituents have talked to me about the return of these heavy trucks to the residential neighborhoods in which they live, to downtown Portland, Orono, Brewer, Freeport, and other towns throughout our State. The fact is, this kind of road congestion caused by diverting these heavy trucks into downtowns and along secondary roads can lead to tragedy. A study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic consulting firm found that the crash rate of semitrailer trucks on Maine's secondary roads were 7 to 10 times higher than on the turnpike. It estimated that allowing these trucks to stay on the interstates could result in three fewer fatal crashes each year. Public safety agencies in Maine, including the Maine State Police, have long supported my efforts to bring about this change. In fact, Bangor's police chief joined me at a press conference last week where he spoke eloquently about the safety implications for downtown Bangor. In 2010, as a result of this pilot project, people throughout our State saw their roads less congested, our States safer, our air cleaner, and, most important, our businesses more competitive. That is why I am so committed to ensuring that these improvements are allowed to continue and are made permanent. This legislation simply is common sense. It will benefit our economy as well as lower fuel costs and make our roads safer for most tourists and pedestrians. Most important, we now have the concrete evidence from this pilot project showing why this bill should become law. I am grateful for the support and leadership of my colleague from Vermont and the steadfast support from Maine's senior Senator as well. I urge its swift passage. This is the highest priority I have for the State of Maine this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters I have received endorsing this bill. These letters are from the Maine Motor Transport Association, the City of Bangor's chief of police, the Professional Logging Contractors, the Northeast Region for the Forestry Resources Association, and from a well-known trucking firm in Maine, H.O. Bouchard. In addition, I expect to have a letter from the Governor of Maine later today that I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, improving public safety, growing our economy, increasing energy independence, and protecting the environment have always been among my top priorities as a Senator. Today, the very first bill I am introducing in this new Congress will advance all of those goals by allowing the heaviest trucks to travel on our Federal interstate highways in Maine rather than being forced to use secondary roads and downtown streets. I am delighted to have the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, as my Democratic cosponsor, and my good friend and colleague from Maine, Olympia Snowe, also as an original cosponsor. Vermont has the same problem as we do in Maine. Thus the bill I am introducing applies to our two States. In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project that allowed trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates--I-95, 195, 295, and 395. According to the results of a preliminary study by the Maine Department of Transportation, this pilot project, which ran until mid-December of last year, helped to preserve and create jobs by allowing Maine's businesses to receive raw materials and to ship their products more economically. Also important, the pilot program improved safety, saved energy, and reduced carbon emissions. Let me give a specific example. On a trip from Hampden to Houlton, ME, the benefits are obvious. A truck traveling on I-95 rather than on Route 2 avoids more than 270 intersections, 9 school crossings, 30 traffic lights, and 86 crosswalks. In addition, the driver also saves more than $30 on fuel. Given the cost of diesel, it is probably even higher than that now. Additionally, 50 minutes is saved by traveling on Interstate 95 rather than on the secondary road of Route 2. Unfortunately, despite the clear success of this pilot project and the strong support of the administration and many of my colleagues in the Senate, the House of Representatives failed to include my provision making the pilot permanent in the Federal funding bill. As a result, for both Maine and Vermont, the program expired on December 17 and the heavy trucks are once again unable to use our most modern, safe, and efficient highways. It is important to emphasize that our legislation does not increase the size or the weight of trucks in our States. Maine law already allows trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to operate on State and municipal roads. Heavy trucks already operate on some 22,500 miles of non-Interstate roads in Maine, in addition to the approximately 167 miles of the Maine turnpike. But the nearly 260 miles of non-turnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off limits. This simply makes no sense. Furthermore, trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and the neighboring provinces in Canada. So that puts Maine and Vermont at a distinct competitive disadvantage. All around us, the States and our Canadian counterparts allow the heavier trucks to use the Federal interstates, but unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been excluded. That is why my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has joined me in this effort to help provide a level playing field for our States. Here are a few more important points about our bill. The 100,000-pound trucks are no larger or wider than 80,000-pound trucks. This change would remove an estimated 7.8 million truck miles from our local roads and streets. Increasing the truck payloads by 35 percent would reduce the overall number of trucks needed. In addition to saving fuel by traveling fewer miles, the steady pace of interstate driving improves the fuel economy of trucks by 14 to 21 percent. And the Maine Department of Transportation's engineers say they are confident our interstate bridges are safe and can handle the additional weight in the State of Maine. Countless Maine small business owners have told me how this change would improve their competitiveness. For example, at a recent press conference, Keith Van Scotter discussed the savings his company accrued under the pilot project. Under the pilot project, his company Lincoln Paper and Tissue was able to save 1.1 million billable truck miles, a 28 percent decrease from the year before. These savings are the equivalent of the company being 220 miles closer to its primary market. Also, the owner-operator of a logging business in Penobscot County said that being able to transport his pulpwood to the mill on I-95 rather than on secondary roads would save his company at least 118 gallons of fuel each week. That benefits not only this small business but also our Nation as we seek to reduce our overall fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. The pilot program has also made a dramatic improvement for some of our communities. According to the Maine DOT, before the pilot program began last December of 2009, more than 200 heavy trucks heading north on Route 201 crawled through downtown Vassalboro a small town of about 4,000--each day even though I-95 runs parallel just a few miles away. During the span of the pilot program, the number of northbound trucks on Route 201 decreased by roughly 90 percent. These trucks were using the interstate where they belong. I will tell you that since the pilot project expired, so many of my constituents have talked to me about the return of these heavy trucks to the residential neighborhoods in which they live, to downtown Portland, Orono, Brewer, Freeport, and other towns throughout our State. The fact is, this kind of road congestion caused by diverting these heavy trucks into downtowns and along secondary roads can lead to tragedy. A study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic consulting firm found that the crash rate of semitrailer trucks on Maine's secondary roads were 7 to 10 times higher than on the turnpike. It estimated that allowing these trucks to stay on the interstates could result in three fewer fatal crashes each year. Public safety agencies in Maine, including the Maine State Police, have long supported my efforts to bring about this change. In fact, Bangor's police chief joined me at a press conference last week where he spoke eloquently about the safety implications for downtown Bangor. In 2010, as a result of this pilot project, people throughout our State saw their roads less congested, our States safer, our air cleaner, and, most important, our businesses more competitive. That is why I am so committed to ensuring that these improvements are allowed to continue and are made permanent. This legislation simply is common sense. It will benefit our economy as well as lower fuel costs and make our roads safer for most tourists and pedestrians. Most important, we now have the concrete evidence from this pilot project showing why this bill should become law. I am grateful for the support and leadership of my colleague from Vermont and the steadfast support from Maine's senior Senator as well. I urge its swift passage. This is the highest priority I have for the State of Maine this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters I have received endorsing this bill. These letters are from the Maine Motor Transport Association, the City of Bangor's chief of police, the Professional Logging Contractors, the Northeast Region for the Forestry Resources Association, and from a well-known trucking firm in Maine, H.O. Bouchard. In addition, I expect to have a letter from the Governor of Maine later today that I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 112 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Barbara Mikulski on becoming the longest-serving woman in Senate history. While this is a milestone to celebrate, the true cause for celebration is not just Senator Mikulski's decades of service to this chamber, but her lifetime of service to her beloved Baltimore, her state of Maryland, and our Nation. This occasion has a special meaning for Sen. Snowe and me. As she begins her 25th year in the Senate, Senator Mikulski now surpasses my personal role model in public service, Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Just as the Great Lady from Maine inspired Sen. Snowe and me as well as countless other young women of my generation to serve, Senator Mikulski inspires the young women of today. As a new Senator in 1997, I was one of those tutored by Senator Mikulski. She taught me the ropes of the appropriations process and instituted regular bipartisan dinners for the women of the Senate. It has been a privilege to work with Senator Mikulski for 14 years. During that time, I have come to know her as a fighter, a trailblazer, and as a dear friend. She is committed to the people of her state and of America. Senator Mikulski is, above all, a hard worker. Growing up in East Baltimore, she learned the value of hard work at her family's grocery store. Her commitment to making a difference in her neighborhood led her to become a social worker, helping at-risk children and the elderly. Her activism and understanding of community needs led to her first successful run for public office, the Baltimore City Council in 1971. Five years later, she came to Washington as a member of Congress, representing Maryland's 3rd District. After 10 years of service in the House, she was elected to the Senate in 1986. In so doing, she became the first Democratic Senator elected in her own right. The people of Maryland wisely returned her to office in 1992, 1998, 2004, and again in 2010. Senator Mikulski's longevity is only the preface to her story of exceptional accomplishment. She has fought for increased access to higher education and for improved health care for our seniors. I am proud to have fought at her side on those issues, as well as for increased Alzheimer's research, improved women's health care, and enhanced educational opportunities for nurses. Working with her on the Appropriations Committee, I have witnessed firsthand how seriously she takes her responsibility to the American taxpayers. Throughout her life in public service, Senator Mikulski has lived by one guiding principle: her obligation is to help our people meet the needs of today as she helps our Nation prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. It is an honor to congratulate the Great Lady from Maryland for her many years of service, and to wish her many more.