Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that would provide Federal firefighters with the same disability protections that millions of local firefighters across the Nation currently enjoy. Federal firefighters put their lives on the line each day to protect some of our Nation's most critical assets and infrastructure, and these brave men and women deserve the same occupational safeguards and benefits as their colleagues at the local level. Our Nation's Federal firefighters have some of the most hazardous jobs in the fire service, but the Federal Government does not presume that certain illnesses associated with firefighting are job-related. As a result, to qualify for disability retirement, a Federal firefighter who suffers from an occupational illness must specify the precise exposure that caused his or her illness--an almost insurmountable burden. The Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2009 would alleviate this burden by creating a rebuttable presumption that cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and certain infectious diseases contracted by Federal firefighters are job-related for purposes of workers' compensation and disability retirement. Such a presumption will not guarantee that Federal firefighters will receive any disability benefits. This legislation would simply switch the burden of proof from the sick Federal firefighter and his family to the Federal agency employing him. Thus, as a practical matter, if the Federal employing agency can demonstrate that a firefighter's illness likely had another cause, then such an illness will not be considered job-related. For example, an agency that employs a firefighter who smokes and has contracted lung cancer would be able to rebut the presumption that the cancer was caused by firefighting. Therefore, I believe this legislation contains appropriate protections against those illnesses that may be caused by activities other than firefighting, providing agencies with a fair opportunity to challenge claims without requiring injured firefighters to meet the unreasonable burden of proof found in current law. This legislation is important and long overdue. If enacted, it would relieve Federal fire service personnel of an unnecessary obstacle to receiving the badly needed benefits that they deserve when they fall ill as a result of their inherently hazardous work environment. Federal firefighters work at military installations, nuclear facilities, hospitals, and countless other types of Federal facilities. They are routinely exposed to toxic substances, biohazards, temperature extremes, and stress. As a result, firefighters are far more likely to contract heart disease, lung disease and cancer than other workers. Indeed, a number of scientific studies have found that firefighters have a higher incidence of disease overall than the general population. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of Cincinnati found that exposure to soot and toxins creates an increased risk for various cancers among firefighters. Further, a 2007 Harvard study found that firefighters face a risk of death from heart attack up to 100 times higher when involved in fire suppression as compared to non-emergency duties. It also would not be unprecedented to establish a presumption for Federal firefighters. Congress has already extended presumptive benefits to various groups, including Peace Corps volunteers, military veterans, and public safety officers. Outside the Federal Government, 41 States have already enacted presumptive disability laws for their municipal firefighters. In Maine, for example, the State presumptive benefits law applies to heart, lung, and infectious diseases. It is fundamentally unfair that firefighters employed by the Federal Government are not eligible for disability retirement for the same occupational diseases as their municipal counterparts. This disparity is especially glaring in instances where Federal firefighters work alongside municipal firefighters during mutual aid responses and are exposed to the same hazardous conditions, as was the case in the response to Hurricane Katrina. If the Federal Government wants to be able to recruit and retain qualified firefighters, it must be able to offer a benefits package that is competitive with the municipal sector, including having occupational illness covered by worker's compensation. This legislation is supported by many of the fire service groups, such as the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. The Federal Firefighters Fairness Act is a straightforward matter of equity and sound policy. I believe this bill merits the support of every Senator, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It is for these and other reasons that I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Firefighter Fairness Act of 2009.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who are struggling to make a living at sea. The fishing industry in New England is an important part of our heritage. From our nation's earliest days, fishing has served as an economic driver that has allowed our nation to prosper. Maine's proud fishing heritage is woven deeply into the cultural fabric of our state. Sadly, the global economic downturn and heavy-handed federal regulations threaten the economic stability of this venerable industry. To attempt to assist our fishing families, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the Working Waterfront Preservation Act and the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act. All along our Nation's coasts there are harbors that were once full of the hustle and bustle associated with the fishing industry. Unfortunately, there is an erosion of the vital infrastructure known as our working waterfronts that is so critical to our commercial fishing industries. I have drafted legislation that will help combat the loss of commercial access to our waterfronts and support the fishing industry's role in our maritime heritage. When constituents first called asking me to help them in their efforts to stop the loss of their fishing businesses and the communities built around this industry, I learned that no Federal program exists that supports preserving or increasing waterfront access for the commercial fishing industry. This is especially disheartening because every week we are losing more of our working waterfronts in this country. Quite simply, once lost, these vital economic and community hubs of commercial fishing activity cannot be replaced. That is why I am introducing the Working Waterfront Preservation Act. This legislation would create a program to support our Nation's commercial fisherman and the coastal communities that are at risk of losing their fishing businesses. The need for such a program is demonstrated by the loss of commercial waterfront access occurring in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. We are continually seeing portions of Maine's working waterfront being sold off to the highest bidder--with large vacation homes and condominiums rising in places that our fishing industry used to call home. The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private spaces and second homes that are no longer the center of economic activity. With each conversion of commercial waterfront access to private development, a piece of Maine's proud maritime tradition is irretrievably lost. Maine's lack of commercial waterfront prompted the formation of a ``Working Waterfront Coalition.'' This coalition was comprised of an impressive number of industry associations, nonprofit groups, and State agencies, who came together to preserve Maine's working waterfront. I am pleased to note that the Working Waterfront Coalition was successful in contributing to the creation of two programs in Maine. The first is a tax incentive for property owners to keep their land in its current working waterfront state. The second is a pilot program for grant funding to secure and preserve working waterfront areas. Since 2006, the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program has secured 11 properties totaling more than 25 acres of land that supports more than 300 boats, 400 fishing industry jobs, and more than $26 million in income directly associated with our working waterfronts. The State of Maine has taken positive action to save its waterfronts and is a model for other States in the country facing this problem. This work is not, however, finished. The loss of commercial waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal states. And a modest Federal investment could do so much to save these areas. Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic development along the coast. Fishermen are being pushed out of the waterfront as their profitability shrinks and land values soar. Our legislation targeting this exact problem, as no Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, Washington, and Louisiana. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and State fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of receiving Federal assistance. This legislation also includes a tax component. When properties or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the gain they receive from this sale. This is a vital aspect of my bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in this grant program. This is especially important given that the application process for Federal grants does not keep pace with the coastal real estate market. This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and promote economic development along our coast. Second, I am introducing the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2009, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. Every day, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. These challenges have been made worse by the growing economic crisis, which only adds to the dangers associated with fishing. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the nation's most dangerous occupations. Fatality rate data compiled by the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries program for 2007 has, once again, listed fishing as having the highest fatality rate among selected occupations. While I am encouraged that 2007 saw a drop in the number of occupational-related fatalities in the fishing industry, we must be doing more to save lives at sea. The New England fishing community is no stranger to tragedy. Just this year, the Patriot, a 54-foot fishing boat out of Gloucester, MA, sunk off the coast of Massachusetts without warning. The ship's captain Matteo Russo and crew member John Orlando, who were lost in the incident, were unable to send a mayday call in the early morning of January 3, 2009. The unexplained circumstance of their deaths offers little solace to the families and communities that loved them. What is clear is that preventing further loss of life requires that we do all we can to promote safety at sea. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink. Other life-saving equipment includes: personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007 provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while liferafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code. We have seen far too many tragedies in this occupation. Please, let us support fishermen who are trying to prepare in case disaster strikes. Safety equipment saves lives. By providing a tax credit for the purchase of safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will improve the lives of our Nation's fishermen who are struggling to make a living at sea. The fishing industry in New England is an important part of our heritage. From our nation's earliest days, fishing has served as an economic driver that has allowed our nation to prosper. Maine's proud fishing heritage is woven deeply into the cultural fabric of our state. Sadly, the global economic downturn and heavy-handed federal regulations threaten the economic stability of this venerable industry. To attempt to assist our fishing families, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the Working Waterfront Preservation Act and the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act. All along our Nation's coasts there are harbors that were once full of the hustle and bustle associated with the fishing industry. Unfortunately, there is an erosion of the vital infrastructure known as our working waterfronts that is so critical to our commercial fishing industries. I have drafted legislation that will help combat the loss of commercial access to our waterfronts and support the fishing industry's role in our maritime heritage. When constituents first called asking me to help them in their efforts to stop the loss of their fishing businesses and the communities built around this industry, I learned that no Federal program exists that supports preserving or increasing waterfront access for the commercial fishing industry. This is especially disheartening because every week we are losing more of our working waterfronts in this country. Quite simply, once lost, these vital economic and community hubs of commercial fishing activity cannot be replaced. That is why I am introducing the Working Waterfront Preservation Act. This legislation would create a program to support our Nation's commercial fisherman and the coastal communities that are at risk of losing their fishing businesses. The need for such a program is demonstrated by the loss of commercial waterfront access occurring in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. We are continually seeing portions of Maine's working waterfront being sold off to the highest bidder--with large vacation homes and condominiums rising in places that our fishing industry used to call home. The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private spaces and second homes that are no longer the center of economic activity. With each conversion of commercial waterfront access to private development, a piece of Maine's proud maritime tradition is irretrievably lost. Maine's lack of commercial waterfront prompted the formation of a ``Working Waterfront Coalition.'' This coalition was comprised of an impressive number of industry associations, nonprofit groups, and State agencies, who came together to preserve Maine's working waterfront. I am pleased to note that the Working Waterfront Coalition was successful in contributing to the creation of two programs in Maine. The first is a tax incentive for property owners to keep their land in its current working waterfront state. The second is a pilot program for grant funding to secure and preserve working waterfront areas. Since 2006, the Working Waterfront Access Pilot Program has secured 11 properties totaling more than 25 acres of land that supports more than 300 boats, 400 fishing industry jobs, and more than $26 million in income directly associated with our working waterfronts. The State of Maine has taken positive action to save its waterfronts and is a model for other States in the country facing this problem. This work is not, however, finished. The loss of commercial waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal states. And a modest Federal investment could do so much to save these areas. Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic development along the coast. Fishermen are being pushed out of the waterfront as their profitability shrinks and land values soar. Our legislation targeting this exact problem, as no Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, Washington, and Louisiana. The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and State fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of receiving Federal assistance. This legislation also includes a tax component. When properties or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the gain they receive from this sale. This is a vital aspect of my bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in this grant program. This is especially important given that the application process for Federal grants does not keep pace with the coastal real estate market. This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and promote economic development along our coast. Second, I am introducing the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2009, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. Every day, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. These challenges have been made worse by the growing economic crisis, which only adds to the dangers associated with fishing. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the nation's most dangerous occupations. Fatality rate data compiled by the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries program for 2007 has, once again, listed fishing as having the highest fatality rate among selected occupations. While I am encouraged that 2007 saw a drop in the number of occupational-related fatalities in the fishing industry, we must be doing more to save lives at sea. The New England fishing community is no stranger to tragedy. Just this year, the Patriot, a 54-foot fishing boat out of Gloucester, MA, sunk off the coast of Massachusetts without warning. The ship's captain Matteo Russo and crew member John Orlando, who were lost in the incident, were unable to send a mayday call in the early morning of January 3, 2009. The unexplained circumstance of their deaths offers little solace to the families and communities that loved them. What is clear is that preventing further loss of life requires that we do all we can to promote safety at sea. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a liferaft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink. Other life-saving equipment includes: personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007 provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while liferafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the federal tax code. We have seen far too many tragedies in this occupation. Please, let us support fishermen who are trying to prepare in case disaster strikes. Safety equipment saves lives. By providing a tax credit for the purchase of safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of funding in this bill for the American Lighthouse Foundation. This allocation was recommended to the Appropriations Committee by Senator Snowe and by me. Now, I can understand why those who are unfamiliar with this program might view this as an easy target. That is why I have come to the floor to explain to my colleagues, who may not be familiar with this program, why it is important and why it warrants Federal support. The nonprofit American Lighthouse Foundation in Rockland, ME, partners with the U.S. Coast Guard to protect, restore, and preserve federally owned historic lighthouse properties. Let me repeat that. These are federally owned, and I wonder if the sponsor of this amendment understands that is the case. The Coast Guard leases lighthouses to the American Lighthouse Foundation in an effort to help support restoration because the foundation raises private funds that help to relieve some of the burden that otherwise would fall on the American taxpayer. The three Maine lighthouses that will directly benefit from that funding--Owls Head, Pemaquid Point, and Wood Island--are maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard as active aids to navigation. Let me repeat that point. These are active aids to navigation. The Presiding Officer knows how important that is. These lighthouses perform a vital function for Maine's lobster and fishing industries, as well as for commercial shipping and recreational boaters. They are critical active navigation aids. I would also note the American Lighthouse appropriation is a direct investment in Federal property, a responsibility that dates to 1789 when the first Congress extended Federal funding to lighthouses. This isn't new. This isn't something the Senators from Maine dreamed up when we were trying to come up with worthy projects. This goes back to the beginning days of our Republic. By working in partnership with the Coast Guard, the foundation has been able to raise funds from the private sector. Over the past decade, the foundation has invested more than $2 million in restoring lighthouses throughout New England, and in the process, saved the Federal Government much money by improving these sites with private sector dollars. So this is a wonderful public-private partnership. It is the kind of partnership we in Congress like to see and that we promote. So, again, let me make three points I have to believe that the sponsor of this amendment was not fully aware of: First, that these lighthouses are federally owned; they are Federal property. Second, they house within them active aids to navigation maintained by the Coast Guard--the lights, the horn. These active aids to navigation are used by our fishing industry, our lobstermen, by commercial shippers, by recreational boaters. These are active lighthouses. Third, this is a public-private partnership. The foundation raises millions of dollars from private sources to help restore these lighthouses that contain aids to navigation used by the Coast Guard. Thus, the burden is shifted from the Federal Government to the private sector, and that is extremely helpful. So I think this is a great example of why it is important that those of us who are sponsoring this funding come to the floor and explain it. I think when that is done, it casts a whole new light on the purpose of this funding and why it deserves Federal support. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act, which repeals both the windfall elimination provision, WEP, and the Government pension offset, GPO. We believe that these two provisions in the Social Security Act unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. These two provisions have enormous financial implications for many of our teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers and other public employees. Given their important responsibilities, it is simply unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. They have worked long enough to earn their Social Security benefits. Yet because of the GPO and WEP, they are unable to receive all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. The impact of these two provisions is most acute in 15 States, including Maine, which have State retirement plans that lack a Social Security component. However, it is important to point out that the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in every State, and in particular our emergency responders, our postal workers and our other Federal employees. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP. Almost 1 million retired public employees across the country have already been harmed by these provisions. Many more stand to be harmed in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in retirement benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss: lower income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, over 70 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about the impact of these provisions on their retirement security. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security. In September of 2003, I chaired an oversight hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester had worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State retirement system for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years, she receives less than $800 a month in total pension income. After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, who turns 78 next month, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. She cannot afford to stop working. This simply is not right. It is time for us to take action, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to eliminate these two unfair provisions.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Social Security Fairness Act, which repeals both the windfall elimination provision, WEP, and the Government pension offset, GPO. We believe that these two provisions in the Social Security Act unfairly penalize individuals for holding jobs in public service when the time comes for them to retire. These two provisions have enormous financial implications for many of our teachers, police officers, firefighters, postal workers and other public employees. Given their important responsibilities, it is simply unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits. These public servants--or their spouses--have all paid taxes into the Social Security system. So have their employers. They have worked long enough to earn their Social Security benefits. Yet because of the GPO and WEP, they are unable to receive all of the Social Security benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled. The impact of these two provisions is most acute in 15 States, including Maine, which have State retirement plans that lack a Social Security component. However, it is important to point out that the GPO and WEP affect public employees and retirees in every State, and in particular our emergency responders, our postal workers and our other Federal employees. Nationwide, more than one-third of teachers and education employees, and more than one-fifth of other public employees, are affected by the GPO and/or the WEP. Almost 1 million retired public employees across the country have already been harmed by these provisions. Many more stand to be harmed in the future. Moreover, at a time when we should be doing all that we can to attract qualified people to public service, this reduction in retirement benefits makes it even more difficult for our Federal, State and local governments to recruit and retain the public servants who are so critical to the safety and well-being of our families. What is most troubling is that this offset is most harsh for those who can least afford the loss: lower income women. In fact, of those affected by the GPO, over 70 percent are women. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GPO reduces benefits for more than 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year--an amount that can make the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty. Many Maine teachers, in particular, have talked with me about the impact of these provisions on their retirement security. They love their jobs and the children they teach, but they worry about the future and about their financial security. In September of 2003, I chaired an oversight hearing to examine the effect that the GPO and the WEP have had on public employees and retirees. We heard compelling testimony from Julia Worcester of Columbia, ME, who was then 73. Mrs. Worcester told the committee about her work in both Social Security-covered employment and as a Maine teacher, and about the effect that the GPO and WEP have had on her income in retirement. Mrs. Worcester had worked for more than 20 years as a waitress and in factory jobs before deciding, at the age of 49, to go back to school to pursue her life-long dream of becoming a teacher. She began teaching at the age of 52 and taught full-time for 15 years before retiring at the age of 68. Since she was only in the Maine State retirement system for 15 years, Mrs. Worcester does not receive a full State pension. Yet she is still subject to the full penalties under the GPO and WEP. As a consequence, even though she worked hard and paid into the Social Security system for more than 20 years, she receives less than $800 a month in total pension income. After a lifetime of hard work, Mrs. Worcester, who turns 78 next month, is still substitute teaching just to make ends meet. She cannot afford to stop working. This simply is not right. It is time for us to take action, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to eliminate these two unfair provisions.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman. Madam President, we also struck--I am chagrined to say to the senior Senator from New Hampshire--$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce building. Now, again, undoubtedly there needs to be renovations, but that simply does not meet the threshold for inclusion in this bill. I support many of these projects, but the stimulus bill should not be a vehicle for either my pet projects or anyone else's. In closing my remarks, I want to emphasize that a substantial amount of the funding in our amendment, more than $365 billion, will be used to reduce the tax burden on Americans at a time when this relief is so critical. We provide also important assistance for those who are struggling the most, for those who need an extension of unemployment compensation and an increase in the refundable child tax credit and an increase in the earned-income tax credit. We provide direct assistance to seniors, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients. And very importantly, the amendment contains three provisions that are especially critical to small business--the job generators of our economy. These include an extension of the bonus depreciation and small business expensing provisions we passed last year, plus a provision allowing businesses to carryback net operating losses for five years, instead of the current two years. Taken together, these provisions will give the American business community nearly $23 billion in much needed tax relief. I commend the Finance Committee for its leadership in crafting these provisions. All in all, I am proud of the bipartisan work we have done during the last 10 days. As with any major legislation, this bill is not perfect. But it can go a long way toward creating jobs and addressing the dire economic crisis facing our Nation. Our amendment is bipartisan, targeted, and effective. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I want to point out to my colleagues, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a letter strongly urging a ``yes'' vote on cloture on the Nelson-Collins amendment. I am going to put a copy of that letter on my colleagues' desk. But I do ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the bipartisan compromise amendment Senator Ben Nelson and I have filed, on which we will be voting very soon. Before I get to the specifics of our amendment, let me address more generally the challenge, indeed the crisis, we are facing as a nation. Over the course of the past year and a half, and particularly during the last 6 months, we have witnessed the collapse of the housing market, the unraveling of our Nation's financial institutions, and the evaporation of trillions of dollars of what had been invested in the stock market and in people's retirement accounts. As a result, millions of Americans are worried about whether they now have enough money to retire, how they will make ends meet if they are already retired, or how they will help pay for their children's education. I have heard from far too many Mainers who have had to delay their retirement plans because they no longer have the nest eggs for which they have worked so hard. The crisis that started on Wall Street has become a crisis on Main Street in every community in America. The deeply disturbing economic report released last Friday underscores the magnitude of the challenge we are facing. Nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of January, bringing to 2.5 million the number lost since the end of summer. The Nation's unemployment rate is the highest it has been in more than 16 years. In my home State of Maine, job losses totaled 3,400 in December and the unemployment rate has reached 7 percent. It seems every day brings another report of a business laying off hundreds or even thousands of workers. Friday we learned that Katahdin Paper, in East Millinocket, ME, is being forced to lay off 140 workers for at least a month because the business simply does not have enough orders to keep these workers on the job. These are people who have worked hard their entire lives to take care of their families and now they fear for their future. I know everyone in this body recognizes the difficult straits we are navigating as a nation. Finding a consensus on how to address our economic crisis is extremely difficult. There are some who believe no action is better than the action that has been proposed. I could not disagree more. The future of our economy depends on immediate action that is targeted and effective and the American people rightly expect that this action will be bipartisan; that we will come together to address the most serious economic crisis in generations. That is why I joined with my good friend, Senator Ben Nelson, and a group of Senators from both sides of the aisle, including the Presiding Officer, to help craft a bipartisan compromise to achieve these critical goals. I want to recognize that, regardless of how many Republicans vote for this package today, several were involved in the deliberations in which we participated. Their insights and input were invaluable in crafting the compromise package we are offering tonight. Our efforts to reach a compromise would not have been possible without this hard work, this dedication, this commitment by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Here is what our amendment would do. First, we will provide more than $200 billion in aid to the States. I stress that because I have heard some commentators say there is no money in here, that it has been slashed, that it has been cut, that there is nothing left for the States. Madam President, $200 billion is included in this compromise. Approximately $87 billion of this amount will flow through a temporary increase in the Federal share of the Medicaid Program. I know that as a former Governor, the Presiding Officer is well aware that for most States health care costs are the No. 1 item in their budget. If it is not health care, it is education. The loss of jobs often means the loss of health insurance and it is well established that the number of persons relying on Medicaid increases in a poor economy. Moreover, this increased demand for services occurs at precisely the time that State budgets are under the most pressure. Our proposal, therefore, includes $87 billion in assistance to States through a targeted, temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. Maine will receive an additional $490 million in Federal Medicaid funds through this provision alone. I want to recognize and salute the work of my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, who worked very hard in the Finance Committee with her colleagues to shape this portion of the aid. And I also want to note the hard work of my good friend Arlen Specter, whose efforts were so essential to the construction of this compromise. Putting money in the hands of States is a commonsense way to stimulate economic growth. Leading economists have found that targeted aid to States will generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for every $1 spent. Moreover, this temporary increase will help States avoid cutting back on health care coverage and services at the very time that the number of families needing help is increasing. Some of my colleagues are opposed to this provision because they say it will never be temporary, that once we increase the Federal matching rate it will become a permanent entitlement. We have only to look at history to know that is not true. In 2003, Senators Nelson, Rockefeller, and I negotiated a similar temporary increase that proved effective in staving off drastic cuts in Medicaid and we need to provide similar assistance again. I would note it was 18 months that we did that for, so I believe we can do this in a temporary, targeted way. Next, our amendment provides $41.6 billion for education programs. That is right, more than $41 billion in new funding for education programs. It includes $13.5 billion in funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, what is known to most of us as special education, education for children with special needs. This new funding will help fulfill a promise that the Federal Government made back in the 1970s, when it first passed IDEA. At that time, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure for every child in special education and we have never come close. This is the granddaddy of unfunded Federal mandates. This money will help relieve the burden on school districts. Every school district throughout the United States will benefit from this increase in special education funding. That, in turn, will help communities retain support staff and teachers in the classroom because, after all, they cannot cut back on funding for special education because that is a Federal mandate. What happens is they are forced to cut back elsewhere. This will help a great deal with teacher and support staff retention and it helps relieve the pressure of this unfunded mandate. Other education funding includes $10.4 billion in title I funding. This is funding that goes to school districts with high percentages of economically disadvantaged students. Another education portion of this bill provides $13.9 billion for Pell grants so that the maximum Pell grant will increase by $281 for the 2009 school year, and by $400 for the 2010 school year. I worked at a college prior to my election to the Senate and I know how critical Pell grants are for our low-income families. That is not all. The $200 billion in aid to States also includes $39 billion for a new State stabilization fund, to help States and local governments with other key priorities. Let me now talk about another part of this bill that I think is absolutely critical and which fortunately enjoys widespread support. Every State in the Nation has a backlog of needed infrastructure projects that are ready to go--the engineering is done, the design is completed, they are truly shovel ready. We are providing nearly $52 billion in funding to restore our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. Of that amount, $45.5 billion is directed to a wide variety of transportation projects and that is expected to produce $5.70 of economic benefits for every $1 spent--a tremendous rate of return. For every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure, up to 35,000 jobs can be created, so this is a real job generator. Under our amendment, the State of Maine could receive more than $170 million in transportation infrastructure funding, and that will result in nearly 6,000 jobs for Mainers. This part of our amendment also provides $6.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Again, these are more examples of unfunded Federal mandates where we can help relieve pressure on States and communities while creating good jobs. There have been many discussions about what should not be included in this bill. There are a number of worthwhile projects and programs that were funded by the House bill and by the bills as reported by the Senate committees--programs I have always supported that are near and dear to my heart. But the fundamental, critical goal of this bill is to provide a jolt to our economy to get it back on track. So some of these programs, while they are worthy of an increase in funding, simply do not belong in an economic stimulus bill. This is the test we applied: Will it help get our economy on track? Will it create jobs? Will it save jobs? Will it put tax relief in the pockets of consumers? These are the proper criteria. It is the regular appropriations process that is the appropriate vehicle for considering funding for many of these programs that, while worthwhile, do not boost our economy. So our amendment eliminates $5.8 billion for health prevention and wellness programs. I support these programs. I am a strong supporter of them. But it simply does not make sense to fund smoking cessation programs as part of an economic stimulus package. It does not make sense to include $870 million for pandemic flu preparedness, again an issue that I care deeply about because of my role on the Homeland Security Committee.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, is the time controlled?

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Nelson, Senator Specter, and Senator Lieberman, in offering a bipartisan compromise on the stimulus proposal that is before us. This proposal is the culmination of much deliberation and debate by so many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I realize some of my Republican colleagues who were involved in the deliberations ultimately have decided not to support the compromise, but their debate, their ideas helped inform the compromise we are presenting tonight. Our country faces a grave economic crisis, and the American people want us to work together. They do not want to see us dividing along partisan lines on the most serious crisis facing our country. That is why so many of us have worked night and day to try to come up with a stimulus package that would be a considerable improvement over the House-passed bill and would help boost our economy and create and preserve jobs. I could not vote for the House-passed bill. Laden with unnecessary expenditures, it was a Christmas tree upon which every Member, virtually, had hung his or her favorite project. It was bloated, expensive, and ineffective. This compromise greatly improves the bill. It will help our economy recover from a dangerous recession. It will help Americans throughout this country who are struggling because they have lost their jobs. Every day we hear more reports of massive job losses. Just today we learned our country lost nearly 600,000 jobs in January alone. The unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent, its highest level in more than 16 years. Unemployment in my home State of Maine is now 7 percent--again, a 16-year high. Just today in Maine we learned that another paper mill has been forced to lay off 140 people for at least a month because they do not have enough orders to keep the workers on the job. These are not just cold statistics. These are not just jobs. These are hard-working American people who need our help, who deserve a stimulus package that is targeted, effective, and bipartisan. That is why I have worked so hard with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to come up with a responsible plan that will jump-start our economy and help improve the lives of hard-working people. This debate is not about Republicans or about Democrats. It is not about our new President winning or losing. It is about helping the American people. Surely we ought to be able to come together to advance that goal. I have maintained since the beginning of this debate that in order to be effective, the money included in this package has to be able to be spent quickly to put more dollars into the taxpayers' pockets, and it has to be targeted and directed to projects that will really help. That is what we have done. As my colleague from Nebraska has pointed out, we have reduced over $110 billion in unnecessary spending from this bill. We have cut that away. Is it perfect? No. Every compromise reflects choices that are necessary to bring people together. But this bill is an enormous improvement over the House bill. It cuts away many projects that are worthwhile projects but which do not belong in a stimulus package because they have nothing to do with turning our economy around and creating and saving jobs. There has been a lot of talk from outside groups about our slashing the spending in this bill. We took a targeted approach. We did cut spending, even for programs we all support because they belong in the regular appropriations process. They are good programs, but they are not programs that will stimulate the economy. So we focused on the following programs: We included $45.5 billion for infrastructure projects--roads and bridges that are needed throughout our country that are ready to go, that will put people to work, and that will leave lasting assets in communities across this country. We helped to fund some water and sewer projects that are the results of unfunded Federal mandates which are needed to improve public health but impose a real burden on struggling communities and States. We included $4.4 billion to improve our electric transmission through a smart grid that will help us to transmit alternative sources of energy. We included $87 billion in targeted temporary increases in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. This will help our States avoid deep cutbacks in health care coverage for some of our most vulnerable citizens. We included $6 billion for special education. If you talk to schools throughout this country and you ask them how you can most help them, they will say: Start fulfilling the Federal promise to help fund special education for children with special needs. It is a promise we made back in the 1970s that we have never kept. We put in funding for special education. That will help communities across this country, and it will help retain teaching jobs as well. We also included nearly $4 billion in Pell grants to help our neediest students go to college. We have included funding for a 1-year fix in the alternative minimum tax, which unfairly imposes an increased tax on middle-income families. There are tax incentives for small businesses, the true job creators in this country. They will be helped by this bill. There is tax relief for low-income and middle-income families. That is so important, to help those families who are truly struggling right now, and it will help boost consumer demand as well. We took a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive approach. We got rid of funding for such projects as $870 million for pandemic flu preparedness. That is something that may be needed but doesn't belong in a stimulus package. We made a number of cuts like that, difficult cuts but important, so that we could keep to the purpose of this package. This has been an extremely difficult deliberation, but I believe we have an obligation to start solving the problems facing this country. The American people do not want to see partisan gridlock. They do not want to see us divided and fighting. They want to see us working together to solve the most important crisis facing our country. That is what we have done. That is why we have presented this compromise. Again, I thank not only my colleagues, Senator Nelson, Senator Specter, and Senator Lieberman--all of whom have worked so hard--but others whose input and insights were invaluable in crafting this package.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to state my opposition to the confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. Our current economic crisis is, in part, a crisis of confidence. If we are to return to prosperity, the American people must have confidence in those who would chart our course. Mr. Geithner's professional background and experience should inspire that confidence. They are overshadowed, however, by the personal issues regarding his own tax returns. When these issues first arose, they were cited as examples of the baffling complexity of our Tax Code and of the need for reform. They were described by the nominee himself as ``careless mistakes.'' As more details have emerged, it has become clear to me that this is not merely a matter of complexity leading to mistakes, but of inexcusable negligence. Mr. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. He failed to make these tax payments despite the fact that the IMF repeatedly reminded him of this obligation. He signed paperwork acknowledging this obligation. He received extra compensation that he acknowledged at the time was for the purpose of paying this obligation. Yet when he filed tax returns for the years he was employed at the IMF, he did not pay self- employment taxes. After working for the IMF for 3 years, Mr. Geithner was audited by the Internal Revenue Service in 2006, which discovered that he had failed to pay his self-employment taxes. Mr. Geithner was ordered to correct his tax returns for 2003 and 2004, and he paid the amount that he owed for those years. But Mr. Geithner had made the same omission in 2001 and 2002, years that were outside the scope of the audit. Yet, having been informed by the IRS of his omission for 2003 and 2004, Mr. Geithner took no action to correct the deficiency from 2001 and 2002--years for which the statute of limitations had already run. In fact, Mr. Geithner chose not to make the payments until he was being considered for this position at the end of 2008. A similar failure to correct omissions when informed of them occurred when the accountant who prepared Mr. Geithner's tax returns in 2006 informed him that certain deductions Mr. Geithner had taken for 3 earlier years were not allowed. These deductions involved writing off overnight camps as childcare expenses. Mr. Geithner did not attempt to claim the deduction for 2006 but did not correct his returns for the previous years. And again, this deficiency was not addressed until late last year, when Mr. Geithner was being considered for this Cabinet position. Madam President, throughout the State of Maine and indeed throughout the Nation, millions of hard-working Americans pay their taxes on time and in full. Our taxation system is essentially an honor system that depends on self-assessment and honesty. When taxpayers make mistakes, they are expected to correct them promptly and completely. How can we tell the taxpayers that they are expected to comply fully with our tax laws when these laws have been treated so cavalierly by the person who would lead the Treasury Department and, ultimately, the Internal Revenue Service, when he was applying them to himself? Therefore, Madam President, I must oppose this nomination.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the confirmation of Senator Hillary Clinton to be our next Secretary of State. Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly approved Senator Clinton to become our Nation's top diplomat. I rise today to echo the committee's approval and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her confirmation. Senator Clinton's many years of public service make her an outstanding nominee for Secretary of State. In her confirmation hearing, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, spoke of Senator Clinton as ``the epitome of a big leaguer,'' who has remarkable qualifications for the post of Secretary of State. The committee chairman, Senator Kerry, shared his faith in her qualifications and abilities, having seen her ``diplomatic acumen up close.'' He also said that Senator Clinton did an outstanding job in her testimony before the committee, as those of us who observed the hearings can affirm. Senator Clinton is the ``first'' First Lady of the United States elected to public office. As First Lady, she traveled the world for 8 years, visiting more than 80 countries. In doing so, she took an active role in helping to carry out our Nation's foreign policy and was an advocate for our Nation. She not only met with foreign leaders at the highest levels of government, but she made it a hallmark of her trips to visit villages, clinics, and other remote areas, learning firsthand the importance of a foreign policy founded at the most basic levels of humanity. During my service in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with Senator Clinton on a number of issues, particularly since we both serve as fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. We have worked together tirelessly to improve the detection, assessment, and treatment of traumatic brain injury among wounded servicemembers. We also cochaired the Alzheimer's Task Force and have worked together to increase funding for research into this devastating disease. Senator Clinton and I have had the opportunity to travel with Senator McCain to Iraq and Afghanistan. I witnessed her world knowledge and authoritative approach to foreign policy. I have seen her tireless work ethic and intelligence up close, as well as her ability to engage with colleagues across the aisle to get the job done and to meet the needs of the American people. I will always remember one meeting in particular that we had together in Afghanistan. Senator Clinton and I broke off from the group to go meet with a group of Afghan women from all walks of life. I was so impressed with Senator Clinton's engagement with these women, with her genuine interest and the details of their lives, whether it was their access to health care or the education for their children. She was very engaged in the conversations despite the fact that we had traveled all night and were extremely tired. Her caring, her compassion came across in her conversations with these women. I know these qualities--her caring, her compassion, her commitment, her extraordinary preparation and intelligence--will serve her well and will serve our country well as Secretary of State. Today our Nation faces many pressing challenges abroad. The challenges are many, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but security in the Middle East and the safety of the people of Israel, and the dangerous situation in Pakistan. I am encouraged by Senator Clinton's commitment to a foreign policy and a national security strategy that is built on bipartisan consensus and executed with nonpartisan commitment and confidence. She has promised a foreign policy based on principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology; facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of her confirmation, and I echo the suggestion of Senator McCain that we get on with this as she is an extraordinary nominee and deserves our support.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to support the nomination of Dr. Peter R. Orszag to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As our Nation wrestles with the economic crisis, the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, must be prepared to tackle serious fiscal and budgetary crises. The Federal budget is under stress from the impact of a deep recession and the costs of rescue and stimulus packages. Spiraling, out-of-control health-care costs are driving long-term budgetary imbalances. And the next few years will also see cresting waves of baby boom retirements, with enormous impacts on Social Security and Medicare expenditures, as well as the Federal workforce. Pointing to these trends and to the estimated $1.2 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, President Obama has prudently warned that unless strong measures are taken, the outlook is for ``red ink as far as the eye can see.'' That is, of course, an unacceptable and unsustainable scenario for the Government, for the economy, and for the households and business owners who pay the Government's bills. OMB is the leading player for the incoming administration as it formulates policy to deal with a grim present and uncertain future. OMB also serves as a critical link between Congress and the executive branch as we work toward a consensus on a sustainable path forward. Dr. Orszag brings an impressive set of skills and experiences--and apparently boundless energy--to OMB. As a former Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, he is familiar with the legislative branch and the intricacies of budgets and policy analysis. Earlier service as an economics adviser in the Clinton administration, as a scholar at the Brookings Institution, and as a consultant will also provide important perspectives. Dr. Orszag will need to draw on every ounce of his knowledge and experience as he takes the reins of OMB. Dr. Orszag has already indicated that the economy and stimulus measures portend a near-term rise in the deficit. But as he knows, recent years' outlays and the growth of unfunded entitlements are unsustainable. We desperately need a realistic plan to avoid having the Federal budget become a mammoth drag on opportunities for job growth and higher personal income--and for people's ability to decide what to do with their own money. The public also expects aggressive oversight and careful stewardship of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and of any future economic-recovery package. Dr. Orszag will also need to focus intensely on the management challenges confronting the Federal Government. OMB must provide sustained leadership to build upon contracting reforms Senator Lieberman and I championed in the last Congress. Improving transparency and accountability in Government operations and enhancing agency performance will also be Dr. Orszag's responsibility. These and other pressing challenges will confront Dr. Orszag as Director of Office of Management and Budget. I look forward to working with him as we confront the financial problems our Nation faces. nomination of janet napolitano Mr. President, I also support the nomination of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As the Department nears its sixth anniversary, those of us who participated in its creation can take some measure of satisfaction in its progress. The men and women of the Department have helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Our Nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters--whether natural or manmade--has also improved dramatically with the changes this committee made in the structure and operations of FEMA. Nonetheless, constantly evolving terrorist threats and the forces of nature demand further improvements at the Department and strong and skilled leadership. I believe Governor Napolitano will provide that leadership. I have had the opportunity to closely examine the record of Governor Napolitano and talk with her about a wide range of issues, including security at our borders and seaports, cooperation with State and local law enforcement, and the myriad tests that DHS must confront in the coming years. The Governor's law enforcement background and knowledge of homeland security issues are impressive. Her experience as a border-State Governor enables her to bring an important perspective to the Department. Arizona, like my home State of Maine, is a border State with extensive cross-border and tourism. Residents of border communities work, shop, worship, and visit friends and family on both sides of the boundary, complicating the challenge of border security. Governor Napolitano understands that we have to let our friends in, while keeping our enemies out--enforcing border regulations in a practical manner that accommodates legitimate trade and travel. One emerging challenge the new Secretary will face is the need to enhance security at the Nation's biological laboratories. The recent report of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction predicted a terrorist attack with a biological weapon within the next 5 years. The Commission pointed to lax security at biological labs as one of the bases for that chilling assessment. Another threat that the Department must address is the security of our Nation's cyber-infrastructure. The Department must fully understand the cyber threat and establish and enforce best practices across the executive branch, as well as redouble its efforts to work with the private sector on cyber-security. We must also continue to focus on the security and resiliency of our Nation's critical infrastructure. With more than 85 percent of those assets in private hands, this is a daunting task. Seaports and chemical facilities have been made more secure through legislation that I coauthored. In addition to extending these two important programs, the Department must develop a strategy to promote the best practices developed through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In the last 6 years, DHS has helped improve our all-hazards preparedness and response capabilities. Homeland security grant funding for our State and local first responders has certainly played a key role in that effort. Funding levels in the last few years, however, have been under attack from the executive branch, and DHS has not yet fully complied with the requirement to establish an all-hazards risk formula. The Department must also improve information sharing and cooperation with our State and local partners. The Federal Emergency Management Agency forms the core of the Department's ability to perform its preparedness, response, and recovery missions. After Hurricane Katrina, Senator Lieberman and I authored vital reforms of FEMA. Subsequent disasters like wildfires, tornadoes, and severe storms and floods have demonstrated FEMA's new and improved capabilities, bolstered by increased coordination with State and local governments and military resources. FEMA's documented improvements and the logical combination of all- hazards prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery in a single department underscore the need to keep FEMA within DHS. Detaching FEMA in the vain hope of recapturing mythical halcyon days would weaken its effectiveness, reduce the ability of DHS to carry out its all-hazards planning mandate, cause needless duplication of effort, and foment confusion among State and local first responders during a disaster. That is why our Nation's leading first responder organizations, like the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Congressional Fires Services Institute, the International Association of the Chiefs of Police, and the National Troopers Coalition, all strongly support keeping FEMA as part of DHS. As a relatively new Department, DHS still suffers from significant integration and management challenges. The effective operation of the Department's 22 legacy agencies requires a strong Departmental culture, close collaboration between the Department's components, and effective cooperation with other Federal, State, local, tribal and private-sector partners. From the Department's program management and resource allocations, to the basic need for a consolidated headquarters, the next Secretary must focus intently on removing obstacles to effective integration and improved performance. To continue its growth, the Department must have a skilled executive to lead its dedicated workforce. I believe Governor Janet Napolitano has the ability to meet these and other challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security in the years to come. I look forward to working with her and urge support for her nomination. nomination of eric shinseki

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Maine and New Hampshire have much in common. When John Sununu came to the Senate six years ago, I immediately saw in him those traits shared by the people of our two States: a strong work ethic combined with a great sense of humor, traditional values balanced by a spirit of innovation, and fiscal prudence always tempered by compassion. He quickly became not only a valued colleague but also a trusted friend. John's extraordinary intellect, wisdom, and experience belied his young age and benefited this chamber and Nation. His upbringing in a family devoted to public service, his education in science, engineering, and business, and his experience in the House of Representatives made him a veteran from day one. His ability to analyze challenges and devise creative solutions made him an esteemed colleague. In the best tradition of the Senate, John brought his knowledge and experience to bear on some of the most pressing issues we face. In technology, he has been a leader committed to growth and advancement. He has been a devoted advocate for special education and rural health care. He has been a strong voice for our forest products industry and for a sound energy policy that would reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. It has been an honor to work with him on the Homeland Security Committee. His diligence and commitment have helped make America safer. His tireless leadership to reform the Patriot Act demonstrated his unwavering commitment to safeguard the civil liberties Americans cherish. In addition to his leadership on national issues like the Patriot Act and tax policy, John has been an effective advocate for projects of special concern to New Hampshire, whether it is low-income heating assistance and weatherization programs or the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. We recently worked closely together with our two colleagues to secure $20 billion for the shipyard's new dry dock to help secure its future. Above all, Senator John Sununu has distinguished himself as a champion of good government. He is an independent thinker who stands up--always--for what he believes to be right for New Hampshire and right for our country. He has a sharp eye for wasteful spending and is a resolute fighter for fiscal responsibility. It has been an honor to serve with John, and I wish him and his family all the best. I will miss serving with him day to day, but I know that he will continue to accomplish a great deal. pete domenici

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the 110th Congress draws to a close, I rise to say thanks and farewell to one of our hardest working and most dedicated Members, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Pete Domenici's story is truly the American dream come to life. The son of immigrants, Pete worked in the family grocery business, earned a college degree, taught school, obtained a law degree, and served in local government before his election to the Senate. I cannot overlook one vitally important part of his biography, and that is his stint as a pitcher for a farm team of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. Who knows how much different history would be if his fast ball had had a little more ``pop'' to it? For 36 years, however, baseball's loss has been the Senate's gain. The character developed by athletic competition--determination, hard work, a sense of fair play--is fully evident in Pete's six terms in office. When the people of New Mexico chose Pete Domenici to be the longest serving Senator in their State's history, they chose wisely. His tireless work on a wide range of issues has helped to ensure a better future for all Americans, rural or urban, large State or small. He is a respected leader on some of the most important challenges of our time, such as strengthening energy security, curbing nuclear proliferation, and promoting sound Federal budget policy. Pete's understanding of the budget process is matched only by his appreciation of the critical role fiscal responsibility plays. His service on the Budget Committee established his universal reputation as one of the Senate's hardest working, most intelligent, and best- informed Members. His focus on results rather than the limelight led one colleague to describe him as having ``a terminal case of responsibility.'' Senator Domenici is also a true champion for biomedical research, and especially for Americans suffering from mental illness. He has worked unceasingly over the years to increase the understanding and to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness. He has led the effort in the Senate--first in partnership with Senator Paul Wellstone, and later with our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, to pass legislation that requires insurers to cover mental illness in the same way they cover physical illnesses. Thankfully, those efforts have finally borne fruit with the inclusion of his legislation in the economic stimulus bill, the stabilization bill passed in the Senate. It is a victory not just for Senator Domenici's longstanding efforts but also for the estimated 50 million Americans who suffer from some kind of mental illness. It is a testament to his dedication and his compassion. Senator Domenici's tenure has been marked by vision, common sense, and a commitment to results. When he became chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2003, Senator Domenici set to work to craft the first major comprehensive energy bill in more than a decade. Many thought it would be impossible to put together the bipartisan support to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but Senator Domenici did it. That landmark law laid the foundation for American energy independence, the responsible use of existing resources, and the development of new technology. We can build on that foundation by following the model he set of informed debate and thoughtful consensus. While most of his many accomplishments have national significance, there is one that may not be well known outside of his home State. More than a decade ago, Pete Domenici introduced a program that has helped the schoolchildren of New Mexico learn trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. This program is called ``Character Counts.'' It fully epitomizes what Pete Domenici is all about. It fully describes his legacy because, with Pete Domenici, character has always counted. Senator Domenici leaves this Chamber with an overflowing and bipartisan store of good will and gratitude. We are all losing an outstanding colleague. On a personal note, I am also losing an outstanding Washington DC neighbor, since Pete and his wonderful wife, Nancy, live right down the street from me. I am pleased to be among the many Senators offering thanks for his years of service and best wishes to him and to Nancy. Gordon Smith Mr. President, for nearly 70 years, the film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' has inspired Americans and people around the world with its uplifting story of how one man of conviction and character can make a difference. Today, I am honored to offer a few words to the Mr. Smith of our time: Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. Senator Smith came to Washington to make a difference--and he has. He and I were sworn into the United States Senate on the same day, January 7, 1997. Although his State and mine are a continent apart, we quickly found that we had a lot in common. It has been a joy to work with Gordon Smith on so many important issues. Of course, where I come from, the name ``Senator Smith'' conjures up not just the beloved movie but also a towering, real-life figure, and my inspiration in public service. Although Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Gordon Smith are separated by time, they are united in a spirit of independence and integrity. Both served with strong convictions but with respect for the principles of others. Both spoke up when they saw wrongdoing. Both had extraordinary courage that allowed them to speak out when they thought their own party was in error. Both saw the aisle not as a barrier to progress but as a bridge to reaching consensus on behalf of the American people. This focus on moving forward is especially apparent in Gordon Smith's effective work on issues of great importance in Maine, in Oregon, and everywhere in between--health care, tax relief, small business, equal rights, and foreign policy. These challenges are ones that require careful consensus-building, a responsible approach that has defined Gordon Smith's service here. Gordon Smith is simply a wonderful person and an extraordinary leader. We all remember the terrible tragedy he suffered with the loss of his son during his service here, a terrible tragedy that gave him and his family such sorrow. But it is typical of Gordon Smith that out of that tragedy, he chose to do something to help prevent other families from enduring the tragedy of the loss of a child. That is so typical of Gordon Smith--always thinking of others, always trying to do what is right, always committed to public service. ``Smith'' is one of the more common names in the English language, but in this Chamber the name has special meaning, one of uncommon principles and extraordinary accomplishments. It reminds us of a cherished film, of the great lady from the State of Maine, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, and now of Senator Gordon Smith. I thank him for his service and his friendship, and I wish him all the best in the future. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, when she came to the Senate 6 years ago, Elizabeth Dole brought with her a resume that for most would describe a full lifetime of public service and accomplishment. The intellect, principles, and dedication Elizabeth applied to her earlier endeavors have been readily apparent in the Senate. America has been enriched by all of Senator Elizabeth Dole's public service. Her record of public service is truly inspiring. From the Office of Consumer Affairs and the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Transportation and Labor, she has served five Presidents. Her tenure in each of these positions has been marked by the dedication, effectiveness, and accomplishments that we have seen firsthand in the Senate. Nothing more fully describes Elizabeth's character than the fact that she left Government service only to become the president of the American Red Cross, joining founder Clara Barton as the only women to hold that position. In the spirit of that great organization, Elizabeth worked as a volunteer her first year, accepting no salary. Under her leadership, the American Red Cross was a model for charitable organizations, with 91 cents out of every dollar contributed going directly to help those in need. Elizabeth led the American Red Cross by example. Following the gulf war, she visited Kuwait to assess personally the services provided to our military personnel. She traveled to famine-stricken Somalia and Mozambique and to war-ravaged Croatia. She led a humanitarian relief operation to Rwanda refugee camps. That same commitment, courage, and compassion have been the hallmarks of her work in the Senate. Those of us who are women also appreciate the many times Elizabeth Dole has blazed the path forward for other women. We know she was one of the very first women to attend Harvard Law School. Think how difficult that must have been for a woman raised in the South. Yet she persevered and she excelled and she broke barrier after barrier for other women. In her campaign for President in 2000, Elizabeth Dole had a profound effect. She attracted legions of new voters into the political process. She encouraged women throughout the country and of all political persuasions to step forward and get involved in the campaign and to run for public office themselves. Many of the cracks in the glass ceiling are the work of her hands. Here in the Senate, I have been privileged to work alongside Senator Dole as members on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has been one of our strongest and most eloquent voices for the men and women in uniform, and her commitment to them is inspiring. Her dedication to strengthening our national security and modernizing our military is unsurpassed. It is certainly no accident that she is married to a man--former Senator Bob Dole--who exemplifies the quiet courage and devotion to duty that are the hallmark of America's armed services and by which both Senator Doles are known. I know that all in the Senate and throughout our Nation will agree that just a few of the words that best describe Elizabeth Dole are ``intelligence,'' ``principles,'' and ``commitment.'' To those, I am proud to add the word ``friend.'' I will miss serving with Elizabeth Dole. I wish her all the best in the years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life of a true American patriot--Mr. James Joseph Durant of Scarborough ME--and to mourn his passing. Mr. Durant died in the line of duty almost two years ago while serving his community through the Volunteers in Police Services, VIPS, program. His premature death not only devastated his family but left a void in the life and social fabric of his community and his State. Mr. Durant led an admirable and remarkable life. He was married for 47 years to his high school sweetheart, Janine. They began dating in their sophomore year when they were forced to share her English book because he had conveniently forgotten his own. Mr. Durant was a dedicated and caring father to their three children and a doting grandfather of five. He was a decorated U.S. Army soldier and combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Mr. Durant's loyalty to the Army and to his country was so profound that he refused a deferral from deployment to Vietnam to which he was entitled when his wife discovered that she was pregnant with their second child. After his return from Vietnam, Mr. Durant dedicated his life to public service. He worked with distinction for over 25 years as an electronic technician for the Federal Aviation Administration at the Portland International Jetport. He also volunteered for many activities and programs in Scarborough, including VIPS, where he patrolled parking lots on behalf of the local police department. Sadly, it was this commitment to public service that ultimately cost him his life. On December 15, 2006, while serving the citizens of Scarborough in his capacity as a member of VIPS, Mr. Durant responded to a nearby traffic accident. He was helping the under-manned police department by directing traffic when a vehicle struck him from behind. Although Mr. Durant was not a career officer, Scarborough honored him with local law- enforcement honors at his funeral. His was the first death of an officer in the line of duty in Scarborough's modern history. Mr. Durant responded to the Nation's call for citizens to volunteer to help secure our homeland after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Managed on behalf of the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, VIPS provides an opportunity for ordinary citizens to volunteer in law enforcement. As a volunteer law enforcement officer, Mr. Durant made his community safer, stronger, and a better place to live. Unfortunately, after Mr. Durant sacrificed his life heeding that call to service, the Federal government compounded his family's loss by denying their application for federal death benefits under the Public Safety Officer Benefits, PSOB, program. According to the Department of Justice which administers the PSOB program, Mr. Durant did not qualify as a ``public safety officer'' within the meaning of the law. The PSOB program has been plagued with problems since its inception. Most of the national law enforcement and fire services organizations, such as the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Sheriff's Association, have long complained about the huge backlog of benefit applications and DoJ's overly strict interpretation of the law. If we truly hope to encourage more Americans like Mr. Durant to engage in volunteer activities that safeguard our homeland, we must ensure that their families are taken care of in the event that they die while performing duties that public safety officers would have otherwise performed. Mr. Durant is the first and so far only VIPS participant to have died in the line of duty. It would be folly to assume that he will be the last. That is why I believe that Congress should provide volunteers participating in VIPS and the Fire Corps, another potentially dangerous citizen volunteer program, with death benefits similar to those provided under the PSOB program. I fully recognize that proposing to expand the PSOB program--even if narrowly--is controversial. But I also believe that such an expansion is necessary. In the future, I hope to reach agreement with my friends in the first responder community on a way to protect the families of volunteers, like Mr. Durant, who lose their lives protecting the citizens of this Nation. I also pledge to continue working with them to ensure that the DoJ addresses their justifiable concerns with the administration of the PSOB program. As a nation, we owe it to our first responders--whether career or volunteer--to care for their families when they have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect us. While I regret that the Federal Government has not fulfilled this obligation to Janine Durant and her family, I am committed to ensuring that our Nation treats its heroes honorably. Mr. Durant was an ordinary American who did extraordinary things. Having already served his country in combat, having work and family obligations, he made the extra effort to serve his community, and lost his life in the process. We are all poorer for his death, but we can redeem it by providing equitable treatment for the families of other volunteers who may perish while serving the public good.