Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the New START treaty. Before I begin, I would like to thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their leadership on this important arms control agreement. When I first began to consider this treaty, I considered the fundamental question of whether we are better off with it or without it since the previous START treaty expired a year ago. By reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons in a mutual and verifiable way, I believe that this treaty does enhance our security, but it is not without flaws. Our choice is not, however, between some ideal treaty and the New START treaty. It is between this treaty and having no inspection regime in place at all since the previous START treaty expired in December of 2009. In evaluating this treaty, I scrutinized several issues including the effect on our Nation's security, the need to modernize our nuclear deterrent, the effectiveness of verification and inspection regimes, and the impact on missile defense. These and other issues were fully covered in classified briefings as well as in the seven Senate Armed Services Committee hearings that I attended that included testimony from Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Chilton, the commander of our nuclear forces. We also heard testimony from the three current directors of our national nuclear laboratories and a number of former government officials and national security experts. I met personally with Rose Gottemoeller, the top U.S. treaty negotiator, and sought counsel from GEN Brent Scowcroft, who has served as an adviser to four Republican Presidents and was the National Security Adviser to President George H. W. Bush. I also have met with a wide range of Mainers--foreign policy experts, religious leaders, and former members of the military--who expressed their views on the treaty to me. Clearly, the New START treaty enjoys broad bipartisan support. Secretaries of State for the past five Republican Presidents, including GEN Colin Powell, support its ratification, as does former Maine Senator and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. No Member of this body should support a treaty simply because it has strong bipartisan support. But neither should we withhold our support for a treaty simply because it was negotiated and signed by a President from a different political party. The fact is that the New START treaty is a modest arms control agreement. The treaty does not require the destruction of a single nuclear weapon. Under the New START framework, a 30-percent reduction in the number of deployed warheads in the arsenals of the United States and Russia will be required. As such, the New START treaty places the United States and the Russian Federation on a path to achieve mutual and verifiable reductions over the next 7 years. Failure to ratify a treaty that makes modest reductions in the deployment of nuclear weapons would represent a giant step backwards in the commitment of the United States to arms control. If we cannot reduce the deployed nuclear stockpiles of the two countries that hold 9 of every 10 nuclear weapons in the world, how can we expect other countries not to seek any nuclear weapons? Yet the New START treaty has significance beyond its function as an arms control agreement. New START is one component of our bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. In April 2009, I traveled to Moscow with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin. At that time, I indicated that while I supported the President's commitment to reset the U.S.-Russian relationship, it was ultimately up to the Russians to see if they wanted to have a stronger relationship. Since then, Russia has expanded the use of northern supply routes for our military forces in Afghanistan and has cancelled the sale of advanced surface to air missiles to Iran. These are positive steps. During that same trip to Moscow, Chairman Levin and I sought to encourage Russian officials to cooperate on missile defense in Europe. And this issue of missile defense raises an important point about the U.S.-Russian relationship. Just because our relationship with the Russians is important does not mean that we must compromise on an issue vital to our national security. One of those issues is missile defense. I was troubled when I read the unilateral statements made by Russian leaders who sought to make a binding tie between missile defense and the New START agreement. The Kerry-Lugar resolution of ratification eliminates any doubt that the United States will continue to develop missile defense systems. The proposed resolution of ratification clarifies that the treaty places no limitation on the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems except for those contained in article 5. It further clarifies that the Russian unilateral statement regarding missile defense ``does not impose a legal obligation on the United States.'' The resolution of ratification goes beyond expressing the position that the United States will deploy an effective national missile defense system. It declares that the United States is committed to improving its strategic defensive capabilities, both quantitatively and qualitatively, during the lifetime of the treaty. In addition to developing a robust missile defense capability, it is equally imperative that the United States maintain a modernized nuclear weapons program as we consider further reductions in nuclear arms. In March, I traveled with my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to discuss nuclear modernization with our allies. I learned a great deal from an in-depth briefing with French physicists about our need to modernize our own nuclear arsenal. As Secretary of Defense Gates has noted, ``The United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead.'' The Perry-Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission noted that the nuclear weapons complex ``physical infrastructure is in serious need of transformation.'' In response, the administration has made a commitment to invest $14 billion in new funding over the next 10 years for the nuclear weapons complex. As a result, the safety, stability, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent can be improved. The new investments will double the surveillance within the nuclear stockpile from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2011. Finally, the Administration has proposed nearly $9 billion for our plutonium and uranium facilities, and it has made a commitment to request additional funding necessary for those facilities once the designs are completed. While the New START treaty contributes to reducing the threat of nuclear war and strengthens nuclear nonproliferation efforts, it is disappointing to me that the treaty reflects an outdated view of one of the primary threats to our national security. This treaty does not address the significant disparity between the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Russia's stockpile compared to our own. The Perry-Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission reported that Russia had an estimated 3,800 tactical nuclear weapons compared to fewer than 500 in our own stockpile. By maintaining a distinction between the threats of nuclear attack that warrant the ratification of a treaty from those nuclear threats that do not simply based upon the distance from which a nuclear weapon is launched or the method by which such a weapon is launched, we preserve a Cold War mentality regarding the nuclear threats facing our country. The large numerical disparity in the number of warheads each country maintains is not the only reason they warrant a higher priority than they were given by either country in this treaty. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I believe that the characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons, particularly their vulnerability for theft and potential for nuclear terrorism, make reducing their numbers essential to our national security. President Obama correctly described the greatest threat facing our Nation in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review when he said that ``the threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased . . . today's most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism.'' Several arms control groups, including the Stimson Center, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have each stated that the danger of these weapons rests not only in the destructive power of each weapon but also because they are vulnerable to theft by rogue nations and terrorist groups. Earlier this month, I wrote to Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton about my concerns regarding this issue and requested a commitment from them to seek reductions in the number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. I would like to read a portion of their response for those of my colleagues who share my concern regarding this disparity: The Administration is committed to seeking improved security of, and reductions in, Russian tactical nuclear weapons. We agree with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's call, in the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the New START treaty, to pursue an agreement with the Russians to address them. These negotiations offer our best chance to constrain Russian tactical nuclear weapons, but we believe Russia will be unlikely to begin such negotiations if the New START treaty does not enter into force. The letter further states that: With regard to future agreements, we strongly agree with you that the characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons-- particularly their vulnerability to theft, misuse, or acquisition by terrorists--make reducing their numbers and enhancing their safety and security extremely important. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the Secretaries and their response be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. So where does that leave us? Does the New START treaty lead to mutual and verifiable reductions in nuclear arms? Does the New START treaty renew our Nation's commitment to arms control? Given the commitments by the administration, will it reinvigorate our nuclear nonproliferation efforts? The answers to these questions were most succinctly addressed in a statement by the leader who negotiated and signed the first START treaty, former President George H.W. Bush. I will conclude by associating myself with his comments on the issue, which I will read in full: ``I urge the United States Senate to ratify the [New] START treaty.''

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, when George Voinovich came to the Senate in 1998, he brought with him a wealth of experience as a State legislator, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor. More important, he brought an independent mind, common sense, and a commitment to results. Through more than four decades of public service, he has always been guided by the principle that a fundamental obligation of government is to honor its responsibilities to citizens. His goal has always been to ensure that those in public office ``work harder and smarter, and do more with less.'' But Senator Voinovich is revered here and at home for deeds, not words. As mayor, he brought Cleveland back from bankruptcy and led its transformation into a three-time All-America City. As Governor, he steered Ohio through the recession of the early 1990s, turned a State budget in the red back to black, and helped rebuild Ohio's industry and infrastructure for the 21st century. From his executive background in local and State government, Senator Voinovich knew that any government is only as good as the people working for it. He has been a strong advocate for improved government management, and for recruiting, retaining, rewarding, and recognizing the best government workforce. It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Voinovich on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He is devoted to protecting our Nation and our people. Our committee's work was aided greatly by his leadership of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, and his conviction that government works only when it ensures that the right people have the right resources to get the job done. He has been instrumental in virtually every major civil service issue for more than a decade and has championed 17 pieces of legislation to transform and improve our Federal workforce. Since coming to Washington, the ``Workforce Senator'' has been a watchdog for the interests of the taxpayers and of government employees. Early in his service, the Senior Executive Service Performance Improvement Act and the Chief Human Capital Officers Act recognized that the Federal Government must compete if it is to attract the best. In this Congress, the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act addressed the need to streamline recruiting so that the right person can be hired at the right time. And his efforts have been successful. A recent Federal employee survey on the best places to work found that the top three agencies-- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GAO, and NASA--are the agencies with the personnel flexibilities Senator Voinovich worked to achieve. I know how deeply George Voinovich cares about the men and women who serve as Federal employees because on many issues we have fought together. In particular, I want to recognize his role in pressing for pay for performance reforms in our Federal workforce. If we want an effective government, we must encourage excellence in our workforce, as Senator Voinovich clearly understands. He has been an effective voice for fiscal discipline, for comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, and for enhancing America's competitiveness in a global economy. All of these issues and so many more demonstrate his commitment to honoring responsibilities and achieving results. When Senator Voinovich announced early last year that he would not seek reelection, the outpouring of tributes was heartfelt and bipartisan. As one Ohio newspaper wrote, ``Once he latches on to an issue, he doesn't let go until he is satisfied with the outcome.'' Senator Voinovich's determination, combined with wisdom, experience, and decency, made him an outstanding U.S. Senator and public servant. I thank George Voinovich for his years of service and for his friendship, and wish him and Janet all the best in the years to come. Russ Feingold

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, November is National Home Care and Hospice Month, which gives us the opportunity to honor the home health and hospice caregivers and volunteers who make such a remarkable difference in the lives of their patients and their families. The highly skilled and compassionate care that home health and hospice agencies provide has helped to keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be in the comfort and security of their own homes. Home health and hospice have consistently proven to be compassionate and cost-effective alternatives to institutional care. In fact, a recent survey conducted for the Maine chapter of AARP found that 9 out of 10 Mainers would prefer to receive services at home as opposed to a nursing home or other residential care facility. Moreover, by helping patients to avoid more costly hospitals and nursing homes, home health and hospice save Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers millions of dollars each year. Over the past several years, I have had the opportunity to meet and visit with a number of home health and hospice patients and providers around my State. I have seen firsthand what a difference the highly skilled and compassionate care that these health professionals provide makes to the lives of their patients and families. That is why I am such a committed and passionate advocate for home health and hospice care. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to these wonderful health care professionals and volunteers during the month of November as we celebrate National Home Health and Hospice Month.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on Monday, the Senate took an important step toward extending critical tax relief for all Americans by approving cloture on the Reid-McConnell amendment, by an overwhelming vote. This bipartisan vote is encouraging and demonstrates that Members of this body can work together, with the President, to do what is reasonable and right to address the economic challenges our Nation continues to face. As with any compromise, however, the bill is not perfect, and I would like to note for the record several--although not all--of the items I believe should have been handled differently. First, I am concerned about the failure to include an extension of the production tax credit for existing open-loop biomass facilities. This credit is critical for preserving renewable energy and forestry jobs in Maine and across the United States, and an extension of this credit was included in previous tax proposals. According to the American Forest & Paper Association and the Biomass Power Association, since the start of 2008, at least 35 paper mills have permanently closed and more than 75 other facilities have experienced market- related downtime. In the biomass sector this year, six facilities have closed, three in Maine and three in California, and more are under the threat of closure. The bill would be improved by extending the tax credit period for existing open-loop biomass facilities, as called for by Senator Bill Nelson's amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment would allow these facilities to remain competitive with other forms of renewable energy, saving jobs that are seriously at risk. Second, I am concerned that the decision by the drafters to strike language added to the Tax Code by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could lead to unnecessary confusion regarding certain wood stoves. For example, the bill strikes language that I sought in ARRA to clarify how the thermal efficiency of residential wood and wood-pellet stoves should be measured for purposes of the tax credit in section 25C. That tax credit was created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which did not specify a methodology for determining thermal efficiency. The IRS has issued guidance directing that the ``lower heating value'' methodology should be used, which is consistent with industry practices and with our intent to ensure that the credit is available for efficient and clean-burning wood and wood- pellet stoves. Removing the reference to the ``lower heating value'' from the code serves little purpose. Certainly, however, it does not mean that this commonsense methodology is precluded, nor does it require the IRS to revisit its methodology. I hope that my comments today will help avoid confusion about the use of the ``lower heating value'' methodology with respect to this tax credit. Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not hold the line on a tax credit for corn-based ethanol and some other special interest provisions. The corn-based ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive, costing some $6 billion in subsidies from taxpayers annually according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over recent years we have also seen food and feed prices rise as crops have been diverted to first generation biofuel production. In addition, corn-based ethanol mandates present an environmental concern as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants, because mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of emission control devices and systems installed on engines. Of course, a bill without these flaws would have been preferable, but with the economy still weak, and with unemployment persisting at nearly 10 percent nationally, now is not the time to be raising taxes, and this bill averts one of the largest tax increases in history. America needs jobs--not higher taxes. In September, I first urged my colleagues and the administration to come together around this 2-year compromise that will get us through the recession and send a strong signal to the business community to invest and create jobs. I am pleased that the Senate has acted to give families some confidence and business owners some certainty. I encourage my colleagues in the Congress and the President to use this 2-year period to undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our system fairer, simpler, and more progrowth.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I listened this afternoon to Senator Gregg's farewell address, I thought about how much all of us who have been privileged to serve with him will miss his wisdom. But for me, the loss will be even more intense, for there is no one to whom I have turned more often for advice during the past 14 years than my neighbor from New Hampshire--unless, of course, it was his wife Kathy, who also gave very good advice. Judd's extraordinary knowledge of so many issues, his keen insights into policy and politics, and his abiding friendship have meant so much to me. I truly cannot imagine a debate in this Chamber about the budget, spending, entitlement programs, or taxes without his leading it. Given his strong work ethic, his commitment to the prosperity of future generations, and his unwavering dedication to doing what is right, I am confident his clear call for action on our fiscal crisis will continue to be heard and to be influential in the debates ahead of us. Raised in a family devoted to public service, Congressman, Governor, and now Senator Gregg has always been guided by the principle that the public interest is paramount and the public's trust is essential. As a strong voice for fiscal discipline and a champion of bipartisan solutions, Senator Gregg has always upheld those principles. Senator Gregg faced up to the looming entitlement crisis and our inequitable tax system by introducing comprehensive, bipartisan bills to address both concerns. His sponsorship of legislation early this year to establish a bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility brought to the forefront of the national debate our debt--a debt that America can no longer ignore. Senator Gregg's service on the President's commission demonstrated his determination to present to the American people an analysis of the tough choices we must face and the means to return to fiscal sanity. As always, Judd has been dedicated to one goal: ensuring that our country's children and grandchildren inherit a just and prosperous nation where the American dream can still be a reality for millions of hard-working families. The idea of saddling future generations with trillions in unpaid bills has always been an anathema to Senator Gregg. Although fiscal issues have been Judd's passion, the soaring and unsustainable debt has not been his only focus. For example, two years ago, Senator Gregg helped lead a coalition that called for a bipartisan national summit to develop an energy strategy for our country. He recognized and warned against our over-reliance on foreign oil as a threat to our Nation that forces one energy crisis after another on the businesses and families of our great country. Senator Gregg has been a powerful advocate for a common-sense, achievable energy policy that balances increased domestic production, conservation, and the development of alternative and renewable fuels. As his colleague from New Hampshire mentioned, Judd's work to preserve open space in New Hampshire has led to the conservation and protection of more than 330,000 acres of sensitive land, leaving a tangible legacy for future generations to enjoy. Senator Gregg is also committed to strengthening our national security. In 2005, I was honored to join with him and thousands of people throughout Maine and New Hampshire in saving the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is, by the way, in Kittery, ME, not Portsmouth, NH, but it was indeed a joint effort. Standing together under Senator Gregg's leadership, our two delegations, working with the people of our two States, prevailed. In addition to saving the shipyard, Judd has been in the forefront in strengthening and modernizing it. Thanks to his efforts, the U.S. Navy submarine fleet remains unsurpassed as our Nation's shield and our sword. As chairman for years of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg recognized the threat we faced from radical Islamic terrorism, and he ensured that the resources were provided to help protect our homeland, while eliminating funding that was ineffective or extravagant. This is quite a career. Throughout his long and distinguished life in public service, Judd Gregg has been a champion of good government, an independent and creative thinker, and a bipartisan problem solver. He has fought for the public interests and has earned the public's trust. I know that, not only the people of New Hampshire and Maine, who know him well, but people all across this great country join me today in thanking Senator Judd Gregg for his exceptional leadership, countless accomplishments, and fierce dedication to our country and the State he loves so much. We wish both Judd and Kathy all the best. Thank you.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Alzheimer's is a devastating disease that takes a tremendous personal and economic toll on both the individual and the family. Today, an estimated 5.3 million Americans--including more than 25,000 Mainers--are living with Alzheimer's disease, more than double the number in 1980. If nothing is done to change the current trajectory, 13.5 million Americans over the age of 65 will have Alzheimer's disease by 2050. In addition to the suffering it causes, Alzheimer's costs the United States $172 billion a year, primarily in nursing home and other long- term care costs. This figure will only increase exponentially as the baby boom generation ages. If nothing is done to slow or stop the disease, Alzheimer's will cost the United States $20 trillion over the next 40 years. At a time of mounting deficits, the increasing number of Alzheimer's cases has dire implications for our Federal budget as well. The average annual Medicare payment for an individual with Alzheimer's is three times higher than for those without the condition. For Medicaid, average payments are nine times higher. Failure to achieve progress in the fight against the disease will result in Alzheimer's costs to Medicare skyrocketing more than 600 percent and costs to Medicaid growing more than 400 percent by 2050. Despite these alarming projections, to date there is no national strategy to defeat Alzheimer's, and our efforts to combat the disease have lacked coordination and focus. That is why I am so pleased that the Senate last night passed the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which I introduced with Senator Bayh, to create a coordinated strategic national plan for combating Alzheimer's disease. The National Alzheimer's Project Act, which is based on a key recommendation of the nonpartisan Alzheimer's Study Group led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, will launch a campaign within the Federal Government to overcome Alzheimer's disease. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a coordinated National Alzheimer's Disease Plan to combat Alzheimer's disease. This plan will be updated annually and a report will be submitted to Congress assessing the Nation's progress in preparing for the growing burden of Alzheimer's disease. The legislation also establishes an Interagency Advisory Council to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the plan, which is also to include implementation steps and recommendations for priority actions. The advisory council is also charged with coordinating all Federal efforts on Alzheimer's research, care, institutional services, and home and community-based programs. Funding for these activities will come from existing funding appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services. No new funding is authorized. The coordinated effort called for in the legislation will simply ensure that our existing resources are maximized and leveraged to combat Alzheimer's disease. Our legislation has broad, bipartisan support. It was passed out of the Senate HELP Committee unanimously, and it has now been approved unanimously by the full Senate, clearing it for action by the House of Representatives.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it seems evident to me that, unfortunately, the majority leader is not pursuing the path we discussed, or at least that is my interpretation of what he is saying. I think that is so unfortunate. I want to vote to proceed to this bill. I was the first Republican to announce my support for the carefully constructed language in the Armed Services Committee that would repeal don't ask, don't tell. But that is not all that is in this bill. This is an enormously important bill to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It authorizes a pay raise that is important to my home State. It is a vitally important bill. I just do not understand why we can't proceed along a path that will bring us to success and that will allow us to get the 60 votes to proceed, which I am willing to be one of those 60 votes. I thought we were extremely close to getting a reasonable agreement yesterday that would allow us to proceed. I was even willing to consider a proposal by the majority leader that we would start the DOD bill and then go to the tax bill, finish the tax bill, and then return to finish the DOD bill. I think there is such a clear path for us to be able to get this bill done, and I am perplexed and frustrated that this important bill is going to become a victim of politics. We should be able to do better. Senator Lieberman and I have been bargaining in good faith with the majority leader. He, too, has been creative in his approaches. So I just want to say that I am perplexed as to what has happened and why we are not going forward in a constructive way that would lead to success.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could pose a further question to the majority leader through the Chair, I understand what the majority leader is saying, but as he discussed his plan with me, he would, in fact, allow 15 amendments--10 to be offered on the Republican side that would be amendments of the Republican side's choice as long as they were relevant to the bill--and he would ensure that there would be votes on those amendments. So I am confused when I hear he is going to fill the tree because that implies to me that he would not be allowing those 15 amendments we discussed--10 on our side, of our choice, as long as they were relevant to the bill. So I am truly trying to find out what the agreement is.

Ms. COLLINS. Unfortunately, I missed those as well.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President----

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader a question through the Chair. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear the majority leader's speech, for which I apologize. I was in a meeting, and as soon as I found out he was speaking, I rushed to the floor. I want to make sure, since this is an important bill and an important issue, that I understand precisely what it is the majority leader is proposing. So I ask through the Chair whether the majority leader is proposing a procedure where there would be no amendments and the tree would be filled or whether the majority leader is proposing an agreement that he and I and Senator Lieberman discussed yesterday, which would have allowed for 15 amendments, 10 on the Republican side and 5 on the Democratic side. Again, if the majority leader explained this and I missed it, I apologize. I received conflicting information about how the majority leader intends to proceed on this important bill. I note that we have been in quorum calls for hours during which we could have proceeded to the tax bill and started working on it, and we could be working this weekend as well. But I would very much appreciate hearing from the majority leader exactly what his intent is.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the spirit, determination, and life of Ivy Johnson. Ivy lost her long battle with cancer on Friday, November 19. Our thoughts and prayers remain with her parents, her brothers, and the rest of her family and friends. While Ivy's many academic achievements and personal adventures will be chronicled by others, I want to focus on the Ivy we knew--the public servant--and I offer these thoughts on her life and her service to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. From the start, I appreciated and respected Ivy's strong work ethic, and my trust in her judgment grew each passing day. Ivy had a wonderful capacity to combine her knowledge of the law and understanding of policy with the practical political realities that form the foundation of the legislative process. Ivy believed in the law and that it worked to advance notable and worthy goals. She worked with Representative Issa's staff on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to identify financial support provided by the Federal Government to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, after allegations emerged of inappropriate activity by that organization. She provided insightful analysis on everything from judicial nominations to homegrown terrorism. She played a critical role in the investigative work of my staff regarding the November 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood. She skillfully conducted investigative reviews of the government's policies relating to the reading of Miranda rights to terrorists captured in the United States. Ivy understood that the security of our Nation and the privacy and civil liberties of Americans are not mutually exclusive. Her guidance on law enforcement and intelligence tools and techniques reflected a mature appreciation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, an understanding of the threat terrorists pose to our Nation, and a deep respect for the rights of Americans. Her accomplishments were noteworthy in and of themselves, but they are remarkable considering the personal struggle that Ivy was waging throughout her tenure on the committee. Shortly before joining my staff, her doctors found a tumor in her jaw. She endured multiple surgeries, numerous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, and other difficult treatments that sapped her strength and energy. But neither the cancer nor the treatments could destroy Ivy's determination or spirit. Ivy insisted on carrying a full workload. She was always concerned that her treatments might place additional burdens on her colleagues, and she never complained about the hand she had been dealt. On more than one occasion, we tried to tell Ivy to stop e-mailing from her BlackBerry while she was waiting for treatments. When a particularly grueling round of treatments or an extensive surgery was on the horizon, and with everything she was undergoing at the time, Ivy thought of others and let us know she would be watching her BlackBerry if we needed her for anything. And we often did. The trust Ivy had earned from me and my senior staff was such that we regularly sought her guidance on matters across the board. Ivy was ``a lawyer's lawyer''--even the most skilled lawyers on my staff regularly sought her thoughts on issues because her knowledge of the law and her reasoned approach to problem solving was indispensable when complex problems required careful analysis. In her professional life, and her pain, Ivy was intensely private. Few knew how ill Ivy actually was because while she suffered, her work never did. There are times in our lives, whether professional or personal, when we know the right person has come into our lives, and that was the case for us with Ivy. It brought a heartfelt smile to my face when Ivy's mother told me that Ivy had called her time with us her ``dream job.'' Ivy's courage and determination will continue to serve as an inspiration for all of us.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2010. This bill 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 predates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of a line of postsfrom 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 6 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 recently announced that it lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010. The Great Recession, high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have challenged the Postal Services ability to remain financially viable. 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 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 accelerate a death spiral for the Postal Service. The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored, provides 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. One area the legislation would help address is the more than $50 billion that the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. 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 to access amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. The Postal Service must be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, like 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, stubbornly refuse 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 would direct the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Services 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. 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 Services financial condition. If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Services 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 Services 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 Services contracting policies. The findings of these inspector general audits were shocking. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste. In its review of the Postal Services contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Services contract management did not protect it from waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. As a result, 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. Looking at the past 3 years, the IG found that 359 were awarded as no-bid contracts. And 17 of those noncompetitive contracts went to career executives within 1 year of their separation from the Postal Service. Additionally, some 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 Services public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just 2 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 agency competition. The competition advocate also would be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service procurement 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 $150,000 on its Web Site. This transparency would improve the Postal Services contracting practices and promote competition. To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with closely associated entities. It also would require the Postal Services 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. The Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years. But more must be done. One area where improvements can be made is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Services regional structure--eight area offices and 74 district offices costing approximately $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a comprehensive strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings. The bill would also 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 includes a provision that would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Services 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. Finally, 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 retirement age. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford to sustain. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.7 billion to employees on workers compensation. This includes approximately $1 billion in workers compensation benefits to postal employees. More than 8,600 of postal employees covered by workers compensation are over the age of 55. The Department of Labor indicates that Federal employees across the government are receiving workers compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. At the Postal Service alone, more than 1,000 employees currently receiving workers compensation benefits are 80 years or older. Incredibly, 132 of these individuals are 90 years of age and older and there are three who are 98. 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. The Postal Service must reinvent 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 2010 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 2010. This bill 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 predates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of a line of postsfrom 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 6 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 recently announced that it lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010. The Great Recession, high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have challenged the Postal Services ability to remain financially viable. 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 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 accelerate a death spiral for the Postal Service. The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored, provides 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. One area the legislation would help address is the more than $50 billion that the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. 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 to access amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. The Postal Service must be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, like 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, stubbornly refuse 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 would direct the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Services 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. 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 Services financial condition. If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Services 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 Services 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 Services contracting policies. The findings of these inspector general audits were shocking. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste. In its review of the Postal Services contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Services contract management did not protect it from waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. As a result, 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. Looking at the past 3 years, the IG found that 359 were awarded as no-bid contracts. And 17 of those noncompetitive contracts went to career executives within 1 year of their separation from the Postal Service. Additionally, some 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 Services public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just 2 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 agency competition. The competition advocate also would be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service procurement 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 $150,000 on its Web Site. This transparency would improve the Postal Services contracting practices and promote competition. To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with closely associated entities. It also would require the Postal Services 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. The Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years. But more must be done. One area where improvements can be made is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Services regional structure--eight area offices and 74 district offices costing approximately $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a comprehensive strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings. The bill would also 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 includes a provision that would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Services 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. Finally, 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 retirement age. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford to sustain. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.7 billion to employees on workers compensation. This includes approximately $1 billion in workers compensation benefits to postal employees. More than 8,600 of postal employees covered by workers compensation are over the age of 55. The Department of Labor indicates that Federal employees across the government are receiving workers compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. At the Postal Service alone, more than 1,000 employees currently receiving workers compensation benefits are 80 years or older. Incredibly, 132 of these individuals are 90 years of age and older and there are three who are 98. 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. The Postal Service must reinvent 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 2010 will help spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain its vital role in American society.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, unless Congress acts, this new year will begin with the imposition of an onerous new tax burden for American families. They will face an automatic tax increase of nearly $2.7 trillion--one of the largest tax increases in history--when the 2001 and 2003 tax laws expire. This tax increase will hit all American earners regardless of their income level and regardless of whether they are married or single, retired or working or salaried or hourly employees. It is my judgment that the 2001 and 2003 tax relief laws should be extended for all Americans. With the economy still weak, and with unemployment persisting at nearly 10 percent, now is not the time to be raising taxes on anyone. Some argue that Americans in the higher tax brackets should not be protected from this tax increase. But that argument for higher taxes come January 1 ignores the fact that a tax increase on top earners is a tax increase on small businesses and, thus, a tax on jobs at a time when we should be doing everything possible to stimulate the creation of more jobs. As you are aware, most small businesses are passthrough entities. They are sole proprietorships, partnerships or S corporations that must report their earnings on their owners' individual tax returns. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, there are some 750,000 passthrough small businesses in the top two tax brackets. Higher taxes hurt these small companies by taking away capital they need to grow and to add jobs. In Maine, there are numerous small businesses that would be hurt by this tax increase. One is D&G Machine Products, a precision design machining and fabrication operation located in Westbrook, ME. Founded in 1967, this company now has more than 130 highly skilled and dedicated employees. When I visited this company in August, the owner, Duane Gushee, expressed to me his concerns about the impact higher taxes would have on his growing business. He explained that D&G competes with companies all over the world for markets and customers. Without constant innovation and investment in cutting-edge technology, D&G would lose its customers and the jobs of its employees would be in jeopardy. The tax increase that would go into effect unless we act would hit D&G on January 1 and would take money out of its bottom line--money that is needed to upgrade its equipment and stay ahead of foreign competition. Another business that would be hit hard is Pottle's Transportation, a trucking company headquartered in Hermon, ME. This company was founded in 1972 and now has more than 200 employees with 150 trucks. Barry Pottle, who runs this business, tells me that Pottle's needs to purchase 25 to 30 trucks every year just to maintain its fleet. New trucks used to cost the company about $100,000. But in the past few years, the cost has escalated by another $25,000. The tax increase scheduled for January 1 would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Barry to make these investments. Other Maine businesses have come forward to highlight the impact a tax increase would have on their ability to grow their businesses and to add much needed jobs. One of these is Allagash Brewing Company, a craft brewery located in Portland, ME. Founded in 1994, Allagash has grown to 28 employees and has established a reputation for uncompromising quality as one of the finest producers of Belgian-style beers in North America. Similar to most small businesses, Allagash relies on its retained earnings to finance investment and growth. As Rob Tod, the co-owner of Allagash puts it: There's plenty of demand for our product, but we can't fill demand without equipment, and we can't buy equipment without money. When small businesses cannot invest and grow, they cannot add jobs, and that is what our focus needs to be on: the creation of policies that will help the private sector to create jobs. Rob estimates that every 1 percent increase in Allagash's tax rate means one fewer worker for 5 full years. Stated another way, the tax increase slated to occur on January 1 would wipe out jobs for five workers for 5 years just at this one brewery. If that is the impact at one small business in Portland, ME, imagine what the impact would be on jobs lost nationwide. Other small businesses in my home State have expressed their frustration at the uncertainty Washington is creating by leaving these tax hikes hanging over their heads. As one small business starkly put it to me: The increases in personal taxes reduce the amount of money I have available for investments of all kinds. I am not investing in my business. I am not hiring workers. I am not considering starting anything new. I am waiting. There is no way to know what Washington is about to do to me, but I expect it will be nasty and brutally unfair. In response, I am holding my ground and preparing for the worst. That is an exact quote from an entrepreneur in my State. As if the testimony of these small businesses were not enough, there is a second reason to support extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all Americans: A tax increase at this time on top earners would reduce consumer spending dramatically, cutting demand, and costing jobs at a time when our fragile economy can least afford it. We have only to look at Peter Orszag's column in the New York Times-- he was President Obama's former Budget Director--to underscore this point. He wrote that failing to extend the existing tax relief would ``make an already stagnating job market worse.'' He then went on to say: Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt. Mr. Orszag is not alone in this view. Economist Mark Zandi has estimated that raising taxes on top earners would cost us 770,000 jobs and four-tenths of 1 percent of our GDP over the next 2 years. He cautions that earners in the top brackets are responsible for ``one fourth of all [U.S.] Personal outlays,'' and that a pullback in spending by these taxpayers could ``derail the recovery.'' In light of this risk, Mr. Zandi has called the President's plan to raise taxes an ``unnecessary gamble.'' Mr. Zandi suggests that a middle ground where no one's taxes are increased until the recovery is firmly in place is where we should go. That is essentially what I recommended to this body in September. I urged the Senate to take up legislation to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for 2 more years. That is a middle ground. Surely, we ought to be able to come together and embrace that compromise. That will get us through the recession. It will send a strong signal to the business community to invest and create jobs. It would remove the uncertainty. Here is my suggestion for what we should do during that 2-year period, since I see my colleague, Senator Wyden, on the floor. During that time we could undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our system fairer, simpler, and more progrowth. I know that has been a passion of Senator Wyden's for some time. That is what we could use those 2 years to work on. So I am once again going to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--there are some on this side who want to make all the relief from the 2001, 2003 laws permanent; there are some on the other side of the aisle who want to increase taxes for the top two rates and just extend the tax relief for those making up to $250,000--let's instead extend the tax relief for everyone right now for 2 more years, remove the uncertainty, encourage businesses to create new jobs, stop penalizing small businesses, do not put a damper on consumer spending at the worst possible time, and then let's use those 2 years productively to rewrite the Tax Code, to make it simpler, fairer, and more progrowth. I think that is a reasonable plan. Let's abandon any approach of raising taxes at this critical time. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in honor of the hard work and generosity of all those involved in the Wreaths Across America project, U.S. Senators Olympia J. Snowe and I have submitted a resolution in the Senate that would designate Saturday, December 11, as ``Wreaths Across America Day.'' On Saturday, December 11, a convoy of Mainers will arrive at Arlington National Cemetery to honor our Nation's fallen heroes. At each of the thousands of gravesites at our country's most hallowed resting place, citizens from Maine will lay Maine-made balsam wreaths at each gravesite that identifies one of our Nation's fallen veterans. Joining them will be the Patriot Guard Riders, an organization made up of men and women who have volunteered a portion of their lives to consecrating the sacrifice of the service men and women who gave their all for our country. Together, they will continue their tradition of escorting and driving tractor-trailers filled with donated wreaths on the journey from Harrington, ME, to Arlington National Cemetery. This is the 19th consecutive year that Morrill Worcester, owner of Worcester Wreath Company in Harrington, has made this generous donation. And once again, more than 100,000 wreaths will be placed in more than 400 locations, including Arlington National Cemetery and at veterans cemeteries in America and abroad. The holiday season is one that many Americans enjoy by spending time in the comfort and company of their family and close friends. Many families who have lost loved ones serving their country will not share the same comfort and joy during this holiday season. The men and women behind the Wreaths Across America project work hard to honor these families and their lost love ones. Our resolution is a modest way for the U.S. Senate to honor these men and women, as well as the veterans and families who sacrifice so much in order to make it possible for us to celebrate this holiday season in freedom.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it has actually been a great pleasure to sit on the floor--and I see the Presiding Officer nodding in agreement--and hear these tributes to our friend, Senator Ted Stevens. It is, of course, with sorrow that I rise to offer these words on the tragic passing of Senator Stevens, but it is also with a sense of gratitude and fondness that I remember him and that I celebrate his dedicated service to our Nation, to his beloved State, and to the Senate. My thoughts and prayers remain with the Stevens family and with the families of the others who perished in that heartbreaking accident. In 1999, Senator Stevens was named ``Alaskan of the Century.'' It was a fitting tribute to a man who, though not Alaskan by birth, became one with every ounce of his spirit, energy, and determination. In 1953, with his heroic military service behind him and fresh out of law school, he drove from Washington, DC, to Fairbanks, AK, in the middle of the winter to begin his first job in his new profession. He soon was appointed U.S. Attorney and quickly established a reputation as a courageous and diligent prosecutor. Returning to Washington 3 years later to accept a position in the Department of the Interior, he took on the cause of Alaskan statehood as the cause of his life. In 1959, his relentless efforts were rewarded with success. He served with distinction in the brand-new Alaska State Legislature and joined the Senate 9 years later. In this city, he was known as ``Mr. Alaska.'' Back home, he was simply ``Uncle Ted.'' His devotion to his constituents in matters large and small, and in all corners of that vast State, was unsurpassed. Let me return to his military service for a moment, for I believe it offers a clear view of his character and his patriotism. In 1942, with America plunged into war, Ted volunteered to become a Navy aviator, but was rejected due to problems with his vision. Rather than admit defeat, he embarked on a course of rigorous eye exercises and earned his way into the Army Air Corps, scoring near the top of his training class. His assignment-- to fly cargo over the towering Himalayas to the legendary Flying Tigers--was extraordinarily dangerous. His valor earned him two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as military honors from the government of Nationalist China. As in all things, Lt. Ted Stevens let no obstacle bar his way. I was privileged to work alongside this extraordinary Senator on the Homeland Security Committee. On every issue, Senator Stevens demonstrated great knowledge and commitment to protecting our Nation and our people. As just one example, he was instrumental in passage of the SAFE Ports Act of 2006 to secure the seaports that are so essential to our Nation's prosperity and security. Alaska and Maine are separated by a great many miles, but our two States have much in common, including spectacular scenery, and rugged, self-reliant people. Our States also share a connection to the sea that is central to our history and our future. From the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, to his work to protect marine mammals, Senator Stevens demonstrated a deep commitment to the hardworking people who sustain countless coastal communities and an abiding respect for the natural resources that bless us all. Since his passing, tributes have poured in from across America. Some serve as valuable reminders of his commitment to a broad range of interests. Olympic athletes and those who aspire to that level of achievement know that his Amateur Sports Act of 1978 brought the dream of competing on the world stage within reach of all, regardless of financial circumstances. Female athletes celebrate his support of title IX, which leveled the playing field for women in sports. Cancer survivors remember him as a champion of research, testing, and education in that dread disease. Alaska Natives and Native Americans throughout the Nation recall him as a true friend. Mr. President, 3 years ago, Ted Stevens became the longest-serving Republican in Senate history. His service has inspired many who seek to serve their States in public office. We will remember him always, and may God bless Ted and comfort his family, his friends, and those of us who were privileged to serve with him.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern that the Senate may adjourn this week without extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provisions which are slated to expire on January 1. These tax laws include important reforms such as the 10 percent tax rate, relief from the marriage penalty, and the child tax credit. They provide tax relief to nearly 90 percent of all Mainers. If they are not extended, virtually every Maine family and many--indeed, most--of our small businesses will see their taxes increase. If these tax relief provisions are not extended, the typical American family of four with a household income of approximately $50,000 will see their taxes increase by about $2,900 next year. That is right. Coupled with tax increases that are included in the new health care reform law, which I opposed, the result would be one of the largest tax increases in our history. Many economists contend this is the worst possible time to increase taxes because our economy is so fragile. I fully agree. I cannot imagine anyone even contemplating increasing taxes in the midst of a recession. The consequences for small businesses would also be dire. Higher taxes would take critical investment dollars away, leaving less for innovation and expansion, not to mention employee wages and benefits. Raising taxes when the economy is still weak would make it difficult and in some cases impossible for small businesses to start, grow, and create jobs. Peter Orszag, President Obama's former OMB Director, recently penned and op-ed for the New York Times in which he argued that this is no time to raise taxes. As he pointed out, the failure to extend existing tax relief would ``make an already stagnating job market worse.'' He went on to say: Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt. I hope President Obama will heed the advice of his former budget director and abandon his plan to raise taxes at this critical time. It is important to understand that many small businesses are passthrough entities such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations. These small businesses must report their earnings on their owner's individual income tax returns. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that there are some 750,000 passthrough small businesses in the top two tax brackets. I wish to share with my colleagues examples of a couple small businesses in Maine that would be hurt by this tax increase. They are representative of many others, of course. This August, I toured several remarkable businesses in my home state. Their products are diverse and their histories vary greatly, but they share the traits of ingenuity, energy, and a commitment to excellence. The employees and the owners of these small businesses work so hard. An example is D&G Machine Products of Westbrook. Its name and products may not be familiar to the general public, but it is internationally known and respected throughout the pulp and paper, high technology, power, petrochemical, food processing, aerospace, and defense industries. Its precision design machining and fabrication operations put Maine on the cutting edge of innovation. As is so often the case, success started small with this small business. D&G was founded in 1967 by Dave Gushee and Fred Loring in a one-car garage behind Dave's home. They specialized in producing custom tooling and dyes for equipment manufacturers in the Portland area and soon added fabrication and welding services. D&G's founding principles of quality, attention to detail and delivering unsurpassed customer satisfaction paid off. Within a few years, this young company outgrew the tiny garage and expanded into sophisticated design and engineering services. Today D&G has more than 100,000 square feet of shop space and more than 130 highly skilled and dedicated employees. I met many of them during my tour last month. Duane Gushee, who now runs the company, tells me he is very concerned about the impact higher taxes would have on his company's ability to compete. Duane pointed out to me that his company does not compete primarily against other Maine firms or even against other U.S. companies. It has to compete successfully with companies all around the world for markets and customers. Without constant innovation and investment in cutting edge technology, D&G will lose its customers, and its employees will lose their jobs. If we don't act, the tax increase that will hit D&G on January 1 will take money out of its bottom line, money that is needed to upgrade equipment and stay ahead of foreign competition. Another small business I visited is Pottle's Transportation, a trucking company headquartered in Bangor. This company was founded in 1972, and it has grown to more than 200 employees with 150 trucks. Pottle's now provides service throughout the continental United States and Canada, although it concentrates its efforts in the Northeast. It is known for maintaining an impressive on-time delivery record without sacrificing safety. In fact, it has received award after award in recognition of its safety record. Pottle's is also known for its commitment to the environment. Pottle's is a member of EPA's Smartway Program and received the EPA Environmental Merit Award in 2008. The past few years have been very tough on the trucking industry. Barry Pottle, who runs the company, tells me that 1,100 trucking companies around the country have gone under so far this year. His company is in the black right now, but it is a real struggle to generate the capital needed to keep his trucks on the road. Pottle's needs to buy 25 to 30 trucks every year just to maintain its fleet. New trucks used to cost the company about $100,000, but in the past few years, the cost has gone up by another $25,000. Barry tells me this is due to an excise tax on heavy trucks passed in 2006 and new environmental regulations that require $13,000 in emissions equipment on each new truck. Together, these changes have raised Pottle's annual cost of doing business by about three-quarters of $1 million. On top of this, Barry has to worry about the tax increases his company will face if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief laws expire at the end of this year. Visiting these businesses and others, reading what economists such as Peter Orszag have said, has confirmed my belief that the administration must reverse its present course, which is stifling job growth, discouraging entrepreneurship and risk taking, and hobbling the economic recovery. Americans should be proud of the spirit, the drive, and the determination that has produced small business success stories such as D&G Machine Products and Pottle's Transportation. We in Washington must recognize that the policies we adopt or the tax laws we fail to extend have an impact on whether these companies can start up, grow, prosper, and, most of all, create good jobs. So what I have suggested we do as a compromise is to extend these two important tax relief laws for another 2 years. That will get us through this recession. It will send a strong signal to the business community. I cannot tell you how many businesses have told me they are holding on to capital right now. They do not dare invest to create much needed jobs because of the uncertainty of what is going to happen on tax policy. We know we need to revamp our Tax Code. We need to make it fairer. We need to make it simpler. But for right now the best thing we could do would be to extend those two laws--the 2001 and 2003 tax reform laws--for an additional 2 years to provide certainty to businesses and to send a strong signal that we get it. We know we should not increase taxes in the midst of a recession. One of the most startling conversations I had during August was with a small businessman who owns a small community grocery store. He told me he had an opportunity to buy a second store in another rural Maine town. He said he had the financing in place to make the purchase, and he would like to create more jobs and keep this small business going serving the needs of the community. I said to him: Well, why don't you just do it? Interest rates are low, so it seems like a good time. Is the uncertainty about what is coming out of Washington keeping you from acting? He said: You know, Senator, it is not so much the uncertainty. It is the certainty, the certainty of higher taxes, of more regulation, of having to pay more for health insurance for my employees. It is the certainty of more spending. That is what is discouraging me. So I hope we could come together right now, and before we go home pass a 2-year extension of the current tax law, to provide some certainty that we are not going to impose higher taxes on the American people and our small businesses. U.S. Postal Service Mr. President, in my remaining time, I would like to speak today about the future of the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service is in the midst of a dire financial crisis. The data are grim. In the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010, the Postal Service posted a net loss of $5.4 billion. By the end of this week, when the fiscal year ends, I expect that number may hit $7 billion that the Postal Service will be in the red for this fiscal year alone. Obviously, faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service needs to do everything possible to increase its revenue and reduce costs. Yet the Postal Service's plan for regaining its fiscal footing relies too heavily on service cutbacks, relief from funding its known liabilities, and the hope that enormous rate increases will be approved. I am a huge supporter of the Postal Service, and I want it not only to survive but to thrive. It is a vital American institution that serves our Nation and whose roots are found in our Constitution. To help the Postal Service identify additional areas for cost reductions, I asked the Postal Service inspector general to review three areas: the benefits the Postal Service pays on behalf of its employees, the Postal Service's contracting policies--which is an area where Senator Claire McCaskill, who has been a real leader in procurement reform, joined with me--and, third, the Postal Service's area and district field office structure to see if there were efficiencies that could be realized there. I must say, I was both dismayed and outraged when I received the results of the IG's audits. The IG found stunning evidence of contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, financial waste, and excessive executive perks which, if remedied, could allow the Postal Service to realize in excess of $800 million in savings next year alone. That is at a minimum. Let me give you some startling facts the IG found. For a long time, we have known the Postal Service has been more generous in paying the health insurance and the life insurance premiums of its employees, most of whom participate in the same health insurance and life insurance programs as Federal employees. But what we did not know until this review was conducted is that the Postal Service pays 100 percent of the health insurance premiums for 835 of its top executives, an expensive perk that no governmental agency appears to provide. This costs the Postal Service an estimated $10 million annually. If the Postal Service brought the contribution for these executives into line with federal agencies, it could save $2.8 million per year on this change alone. It is unbelievable to me the Postal Service--awash in debt and asking for huge postal rate increases--is paying the full health care premiums for 835 of its executives. The Postal Service is now paying 79 percent of health insurance contributions for its rank-and-file employees, in comparison to 72 percent for the average Federal employee. It is a little hard for the Postal Service to make the case to its employees that it needs to reduce health insurance if it is paying 100 percent of the premiums for 835 of its top executives. If the Postal Service brought its benefit contributions in line with other Federal agencies, it could save more than $700 million next year alone. But that is not all. When Senator McCaskill and I requested that the IG review the Postal Service's contracting practices, the IG discovered unfair and unethical practices replete with no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Service's contract management did not protect it from waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open. The Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. The inspector general found that 35 percent of the no-bid contracts it did review lacked justification. As part of its review, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former postal employees since 1991. Of these contracts, 359 were awarded as no-bid contracts to former postal employees in the last 3 years. Seventeen of them were noncompetitive contracts to career executives within 1 year of their leaving the Postal Service. Some former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay--an outrageous practice the IG says raises serious ethical questions, hurts employee morale, and has tarnished the Postal Service's public image. In one particularly egregious example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract just 2 months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor. The findings of these three investigations show that the Postal Service must get more serious about cost cutting. Clearly, there are savings to be had. Faced with shrinking mail volume and a declining workforce, the Postal Service understands the need to reduce unnecessary costs but its efforts have fallen short. For example, the Postal Service can realize structural efficiencies. Even after the Postal Service consolidated 1 area office and 6 district offices last year, the structure still includes 8 area offices and 74 district offices, costing approximately $1.5 billion during fiscal year 2009. To determine if additional efficiencies exist, the inspector general reviewed area and district offices, which handle administrative functions but do not actually handle any mail. In doing so, the IG identified several options for consolidating the area and district field office structure. One option, which would entail closing area and district offices that have less than the mean mail volume and work hours, could save the Postal Service more than $100 million annually. Another, more conservative, option could save the Postal Service some $33.6 million annually by closing district offices that are within 50 miles of one another. Management at headquarters reported that last year's consolidations went smoothly, with no negative impact on operations. That result clearly shows that the Postal Service should continue its strategic efforts to consolidate. After receiving the results of these three IG investigations last week, I wrote a letter to the Postmaster General, urging him to implement the inspector general's recommendations immediately. In my letter, I emphasized that the IG reports had found concrete ways for the Postal Service to cut sizeable expenses. Reducing costs is a far better solution than reducing service and increasing rates remedies that run the risk of driving away even more customers. Additionally, the Postal Service should increase cross-craft training and collaborate with high-volume customers to increase mail volume through initiatives like the ``Summer Sale.'' It also should work with OMB and OPM to access the more than $50 billion which the Postal Regulatory Commission believes USPS has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System fund. I have been pressing the Office of Personnel Management to change its method for calculating the Postal Service payments into the CSRS pension fund consistent with the 2006 Postal reform law. The OPM, however, stubbornly refuses to change its methodology or to even admit that the 2006 Postal law permits them to do so. I have continued to stress the importance of this change to both OPM and the administration. Clearly, the Postal Service's refund of a more than $50 billion overpayment would greatly aid its current financial condition. In sum, the Postal Service must devote more energy and adapt a laser focus to reducing costs, such as those identified in the recent IG reports. It also must develop customer-first programs that can enhance revenue, increase volume, and earn loyalty. The Postal Service is at a crossroads. It must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future that allows it to grow and thrive. It must reject the path of service reductions and ongoing postal rate hikes, which will only alienate customers. The Postal Service must reinvent itself by embracing change that will revitalize its business model and enable it to attract and keep customers. These actions are within its reach and will help protect and preserve this vital American institution. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the Defense authorization bill and the don't ask, don't tell provisions included in it. Let me begin by making my position crystal clear: I agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, that the don't ask, don't tell law should be repealed. It should be repealed contingent upon the certifications of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that its repeal would not have an adverse impact on military readiness, recruitment, and retention. Those are exactly the provisions included in the Defense authorization bill. My view is that our Armed Forces should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing and capable of serving our country. The bottom line for me is this: If an individual is willing to put on the uniform of our country, to be deployed in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk his or her life for our country, then we should be expressing our gratitude to those individuals, not trying to exclude them from serving or expel them from the force. That is why during consideration of this bill in May, I supported the compromise provisions that were put forth by Senator Lieberman and Senator Levin. At a previous Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Admiral Mullen if there was any evidence at all that allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve had harmed military readiness in those countries that allow their service now. At least 28 countries, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Israel allow open service by lesbian and gay troops. We have no greater allies than Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel. None of these countries--not one--reports morale or recruitment problems. At least nine of these countries have deployed their forces alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and at least 12 of these nations are allowing open service and are currently fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. There is a cost involved to end our current policy. According to a 2005 GAO report, American taxpayers spend more than $30 million each year to train replacements for gay troops discharged under the don't ask, don't tell policy. The total cost reported since the statute was implemented, according to GAO, has been nearly $200 million. That doesn't count the administrative and legal costs associated with investigations and hearings, and the military schooling of gay troops such as pilot training and linguist training. We are losing highly skilled troops to this policy. According to the GAO, 8 percent of the servicemembers let go under don't ask, don't tell held critical occupations defined as services such as interpreters. Three percent had skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean. More than 13,000 troops have been dismissed from the military simply because of their sexual orientation since President Clinton signed this law in 1993. Society has changed so much since 1993, and we need to change this policy as well. But let me say that I respect the views of those who disagree with me on this issue, such as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain; and I will defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments on this issue and other issues that are being brought up in connection with the Defense authorization bill. There are many controversial issues in this bill. They deserve to have a civil, fair, and open debate on the Senate floor. That is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments. This would be the 116th time in this Congress that the majority leader or another member of the majority has filed cloture rather than proceeding to the bill under an agreement that would allow amendments to be debated. What concerns me even more is the practice of filling the amendment tree to prevent Republican amendments. If that is done on this bill, it will be the 40th time. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I support the provisions in this bill. I debated for them. I was the sole Republican in the committee who voted for the Lieberman-Levin language on don't ask, don't tell. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is only fair. I think we should welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country. But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair. So I am going to make one final plea to my colleagues to enter into a fair time agreement that will allow full and open debate, full and open amendments to all the provisions of this bill, including don't ask, don't tell, even though I will vote against the amendment to strike don't ask, don't tell provisions from this bill. Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks. Again, I call upon the majority leader to work with the Republican leaders to negotiate an agreement on the terms of debate for this bill so that we can debate this important defense policy bill this week, including the vital issue of don't ask, don't tell. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the SECURE Act of 2010--Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements. This bill would help to improve inadequate security at too many of our Federal buildings. As a Nation, we have learned several hard truths: Terrorists are intent on attacking the United States, and their tactics continue to evolve. The early identification of a security gap can save countless lives if we act promptly to close it. There is no substitute for pre- emptive action to detect, disrupt, and defend against terrorist plots. As we remember the lives lost when terrorists attacked the United States 9 years ago, we must avoid complacency. Our country's defenses must be nimble, multi-layered, informed by timely intelligence, and coordinated across multiple agencies. This is difficult work, requiring painstaking attention to detail and an unwavering focus. We must remain vigilant to the threats we face. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that there are significant security problems at Federal buildings, where thousands of employees serve thousands more of our citizens every work day. The Federal Protective Service, FPS, is charged with securing nearly 9,000 Federal facilities and protecting the government employees who work in them, and the Americans who use them to access vital services. But, independent investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General have documented serious and systemic security flaws within the operations of the FPS. These lapses place Federal employees and private citizens at risk. In June of last year, for example, GAO's undercover investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 Federal office buildings. Every single building GAO targeted was breached--a perfect record of security failure. At each facility, concealed bomb components passed through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. Once inside, the covert GAO investigators were able to assemble the simulated explosive devices without interruption. A July 2009 GAO report documented training flaws for FPS contract guards, some of whom failed to receive mandatory training on the operation of metal detectors and x-ray equipment. Other contract guards were deficient in key certifications such as CPR, First Aid, and firearms training. All told, GAO found that 62 percent of the FPS contract guards it reviewed lacked valid certifications in one or more of these areas. This review also found that FPS did little to ensure compliance with rules and regulations and failed to conduct inspections of guard posts after regular business hours. When GAO investigators tested these posts, they found some guards sleeping on an overnight shift. In another example, an inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine on its conveyor belt. That guard was fired, but he ultimately won a lawsuit against the FPS because the agency could not document that he had received required training on the machine. A few months earlier, in April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General also found critical failings in the FPS contract guard program. The Inspector General's recommendations included many concrete steps to strengthen contract guard performance, such as improving the award and management of contracts and increasing the amount of training and number of compliance inspections. These reports demonstrate that American taxpayers are simply not receiving the security they have paid for and that they expect FPS to provide. The reports also show the vulnerabilities facing Federal employees and Federal infrastructure because of lax security. While shining a light on these failings in multiple hearings, our Committee pressed the FPS to take action to close these security gaps. Although some tentative steps have been taken by FPS, we can no longer wait for OMB and DHS to implement the absolutely critical security measures necessary to help protect our Federal buildings, our Federal employees, and the American public. The legislation that I introduce today, with Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Voinovich, would help close these security gaps at our Federal buildings. First, the bill would mandate the Interagency Security Committee, which was established by Executive Order 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, to increase security standards at Federal facilities. The ISC, comprised of representatives from agencies across the government, would establish risk-based performance standards for the security of federal buildings. FPS would then enforce these requirements based on the risk tier assigned the facility by the ISC. Prior reports clearly demonstrate that FPS lacks authority to require tenant agencies of a Federal facility to comply with recommended security countermeasures. For example, although FPS may ask tenant agencies to purchase or repair security equipment like cameras and x-ray machines, based on the ISC's recommended security countermeasures, these tenant agencies can refuse to purchase or repair the equipment based on cost. Since FPS has no enforcement mechanism, these machines are not upgraded, or remain inoperable, and security suffers. With so much at stake, tenant agencies should not be able to effectively overrule the security experts on the ISC and at FPS. To address this problem, our legislation would provide FPS the authority needed to mandate the implementation of security measures at a facility. FPS also would have the authority to inspect federal facilities to enforce compliance. The bill would allow the FPS Director to charge additional fees if tenant agencies fail to comply with applicable security standards. In such cases, the Secretary also must notify Congress of the non- compliant facilities. Our bill also would require an independent analysis of FPS's long- term staffing needs. The Government has an obligation to protect our Nation's security, and our Federal buildings are targets for violence. This legislation would provide FPS with stronger authority to improve security at our Federal buildings. The American public that relies on these facilities and the Federal employees who work in them deserve better and more reliable protection.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings. The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for states like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older persons. Fifteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing, and, by 2036 more than 1 in 5 Mainers will be over the age of 65. One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them. What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than 1 in 5 Americans aged 65 and older experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated. While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed. Moreover those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs. Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care. The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2010 would authorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community- based mental health treatment outreach teams to improve older Americans' access to mental health services. To ensure that these geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it would also include representatives of older Americans or their families and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require state plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include descriptions of the states' outreach to and services for older individuals. We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by a number of mental health and senior organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness.