Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 3879, which is pending at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am calling up tonight the amendment I debated on the Senate floor on Monday, with Senator Dodd and other Members who were present. This amendment would direct regulators to impose strong risk- and size-based capital standards on financial institutions as they grow in size or engage in risky practices. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Brownback.

Our amendment is aimed at addressing the too-big-to-fail problem at the root of the current economic crisis by requiring financial firms to have adequate amounts of cash and other liquid assets to survive financial challenges without turning to the taxpayers for a bailout.

I note this amendment would ensure that the Nation's largest banks and bank holding companies are required to meet, at a minimum, the same capital standards that are imposed on smaller community banks.

That is right. It may be odd to realize, but the fact is, under current law, regulators can allow larger financial institutions to follow capital standards that are actually less stringent than those that are applied to smaller depository institutions. That makes no sense whatsoever, and that is why this amendment has the strong support of the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair.

She has written me a letter endorsing this amendment. She points out it is a critical element to ensure that U.S. financial institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb losses during future periods of financial stress. ``It is imperative,'' she writes, ``that they have sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of adversity.''

This amendment would apply to some of our largest banks as well as bank holding companies, and it would also apply to nonbank financial institutions that are identified for supervision by the Federal Reserve by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council, established by the bill.

This council is the council of regulators that will be created so we have an entity that would look across the economy to identify financial institutions and practices, risky practices that could pose a systemic risk to our economy.

Since I did debate the amendment at length on Monday, I am not going to go on at length tonight, especially since there are others of my colleagues who are waiting to speak. I would note that I have had a very good discussion with the managers of the bill, and I look forward to working further with them in the hopes that we can schedule this amendment for a vote tomorrow. I note this is a bipartisan amendment and that we have consulted at length with the chairman of the Banking Committee.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Chairman of the FDIC be printed in the Record, which letter further describes the amendment and the need for it, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an amendment I filed to direct regulators to impose tough risk- and size- based capital standards on financial institutions as they grow in size or engage in risky business practices. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Shaheen and myself.

Our amendment is aimed at addressing the too-big-to-fail problem at the root of the current crisis by requiring financial firms to have adequate amounts of cash and other liquid assets to survive financial crises without turning to the taxpayers for a bailout. It is critical to our ability to avoid future crises that this amendment be adopted.

I am very pleased that the FDIC Chairman, Sheila Bair, has strongly endorsed our amendment. In a recent letter to me, Chairman Bair called this proposal:

. . . a critical element to ensure that U.S. financial

institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb losses during

future periods of financial stress. With new resolution

authority, taxpayers will no longer bail out large financial

institutions. This makes it imperative that they have

sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of

adversity.

Chairman Bair also noted the importance of ensuring that bank holding companies and large nonbanks are held to the same capital and risk standards that are applied to insured banks in order to protect against excessive leverage that could destabilize our financial system. As Chairman Bair put it, ``The amendment accomplishes this goal simply and directly.''

It makes no sense that capital and risk standards for our Nation's largest financial institutions are more lenient than those that apply to small depository banks, when the failure of larger institutions is much more likely to have a broad economic impact. Yet that is currently the case. We must give the regulators the tools to end and the direction to address this problem. If financial firms, including bank holding companies, were required to meet stronger capital standards, they would be far less likely to fail and to trigger the kind of cascade of economic harm we have been experiencing since 2008.

The Collins-Shaheen amendment directs Federal regulators to impose minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements on banks, bank holding companies, and those nonbank financial firms identified by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council for supervision by the Federal Reserve. Neither current law nor the bill before us requires regulators to adjust capital standards for risk factors as financial institutions grow in size and engage in risky practices.

The current Senate financial regulatory reform bill also does not require regulators to apply minimum capital and risk measures across financial institutions, as would be required by our amendment. As the FDIC Chairman has noted about the current financial crisis, ``Far from being a source of strength to banks . . . holding companies became a source of weakness, requiring financial support.''

She went on to caution that ``they should not be allowed to operate under consolidated capital requirements that are numerically lower and qualitatively less stringent than those that apply to insured banks.''

Our amendment would tighten the standards that would apply to larger financial institutions by requiring them to meet, at a minimum, the standards that already apply to small banks. This only makes sense. If a small bank fails, the FDIC can close down that bank over a weekend, allow it to operate, avoid a run on the bank, and deal with it in an orderly way. But if a large bank holding company fails, it is so interconnected in our economy that it sets off a cascade of dire economic consequences. That was the point that the chairman of the Banking Committee was just making. We live in such an interconnected global financial system now.

So, from my point of view, a view that is shared by the Chairman of the FDIC, it is only prudent for us to empower the regulators to impose, at a minimum, the same kinds of capital and leverage requirements and restrictions that apply to small insured banks.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Chairman Bair be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

I had the privilege of serving the people of Maine as a financial regulator for 5 years about 20 years ago. This is an issue about which I care deeply and am committed to helping forge a solution to, so that never again can the problems and the excesses of Wall Street have such dire consequences for Main Street.

Increasing capital requirements as firms grow provides a disincentive to their becoming too big to fail in the first place, and ensures an adequate capital cushion in difficult economic times. Our amendment directs the regulators to establish capital standards that take size and risk into account.

Our amendment strengthens the economic foundation of large financial firms, increases oversight and accountability, and helps prevent the excesses that contributed to a deep recession that has cost millions of Americans their jobs.

Let me conclude by thanking the chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member of the Banking Committee and members such as the Presiding Officer and Senator Corker and Senator Gregg for their work on this very complex issue. More than a year ago I introduced a financial regulatory reform bill. I had the pleasure of discussing the bill with the chairman of the Banking Committee, and I am pleased with much of what is in his bill at this point in the debate.

I hope we can continue to make further changes, such as the amendment I have proposed with Senator Shaheen, but I do want to salute the members of the Banking Committee. I know this is enormously complex and, at times, a thankless task. But it is so important. In fact, I argued that we should have dealt with financial regulatory reform last year. I think it is that important to the future of our economy. We realize we were operating with regulatory

black holes that allowed, for example, trillions of dollars of credit default swaps to develop with no one having oversight or visibility as far as their impact on the financial market.

They were not regulated as insurance, even though I personally believe they act as an insurance product, nor were they regulated by the banking regulators. The creation of the Council of Regulators in this bill has not received a great deal of discussion, but I think it is one of the most important provisions in this reform, and it is one that has widespread bipartisan support. It was the key feature of the bill I introduced last year. I have discussed it with the Presiding Officer as well.

I personally still believe we need an independent chairman of that council rather than the Secretary of the Treasury. I think we need to broaden the makeup of the council to include some State regulators so that the insurance area is covered, and State securities administrators, since they play such a critical role. I think those State regulators should be brought on to the council in a nonvoting capacity given the constitutional issues. But that council is absolutely critical. I think we should add the regulator for credit unions to that council. What we want is a council with as broad an overview as possible, bringing together everyone who has a role so we do not have these regulatory gaps, these black holes developing in the future, and so that we can bring the collective wisdom of these officials to the table.

So that is an example of a provision of this bill that I think is extraordinarily important. But perhaps because it does have widespread support, it has not generated much discussion on this floor. So I wanted to mention that and salute the committee for what I think is a provision that is going to make a real difference in preventing the kinds of problems we saw that triggered the recession of 2008.

I also want to commend Senator Levin and Senator Coburn for their work on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the Senate's premiere investigative subcommittee which is part of the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee which Senator Lieberman and I have the privilege of leading. They have given us great insight into the role of everyone from sloppy mortgage brokers and bankers who threw underwriting standards out the window and made loans that never should have been made to people who could not possibly repay them.

They have looked at the role of credit rating agencies that also did not perform in the way we would like. They have looked at the role of investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. We need to take the lessons we have learned, the great depth of knowledge in this body, and work together in a bipartisan way. That is what we have been doing in the last couple of weeks.

In closing, let me just say, we have made a lot of progress. I am confident we can get there. Let's not pull the plug on this debate prematurely. There are a lot of amendments that are good-faith amendments that are still out there. Let's work through them and continue to strengthen and improve this bill which has so many excellent features to it.

At the end of the day, I hope we can vote on a bill that will command the support of 70 Members of this body. I would like it to be all 100, but let's aim for 70. In doing so we can demonstrate to the American people that we can come together and work on an issue that really matters--matters to our economy, to the American homeowners, to our small businesses, to anyone who has a retirement account. It matters to every American.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2010.

Hon. Susan M. Collins,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Collins: I am writing to express my strong

support for your amendment number 3879 to ensure strong

capital requirements for our nation's financial institutions.

This amendment is a critical element to ensure that U.S.

financial institutions hold sufficient capital to absorb

losses during future periods of financial stress. With new

resolution authority, taxpayers will no longer bail out large

financial institutions. This makes it imperative that they

have sufficient capital to stand on their own in times of

adversity.

During the crisis, FDIC-insured subsidiary banks became the

source of strength both to the holding companies and holding

company affiliates. Far from being a source of strength to

banks as Congress intended, holding companies became a source

of weakness requiring federal support. If, in the future,

bank holding companies are to become sources of financial

stability for insured banks, then they cannot operate under

consolidated capital requirements that are numerically lower

and qualitatively less stringent than those applying to

insured banks. This amendment would address this issue by

requiring bank holding companies to operate under capital

standards at least as stringent as those applying to banks.

The crisis also demonstrated the dangers of excessive

leverage undertaken by large nonbanks outside of the scope of

federal bank regulation. Notable examples included the

excessive leverage of the largest investment banks during the

run-up to the crisis, and the extremely high leverage of

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To remedy this and prevent

regulatory gaps and arbitrage, large nonbank financial

institutions deemed to be systemic must be held to the same,

or higher, capital standards as those applying to banks and

bank holding companies. Again, the amendment accomplishes

this goal simply and directly.

Finally, and more broadly, the crisis identified the

dangers of a regulatory mindset focused exclusively on the

soundness of individual banks without reference to the ``big

picture.'' For example, an individual overnight repo may be

safe, but widespread financing of illiquid securities with

overnight repos left the system vulnerable to a liquidity

crisis. A financial system-wide view requires regulators,

working in conjunction with the new Financial Services

Oversight Panel, to develop capital regulations to address

the risks of activities that affect the broader financial

system, beyond the bank that is engaging in the activity.

We at the FDIC remain committed to working with you towards

a stronger financial system. This amendment will be an

important step in accomplishing this goal.

If you have further questions or comments, please do not

hesitate to contact me or Paul Nash, Deputy for External

Affairs.

Sincerely,

Sheila C. Bair,

Chairman.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment that would expand the Financial Stability Council established in S. 3217 to include the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration. It is important that the council incorporate a Federal credit union regulator to ensure consumer regulation protections. Ninety-two million Americans are members of credit unions.

Insofar as S. 3217, section 1023 provides that any member agency of the council may set aside a final regulation or provision prescribed by the bureau, a national credit union representative should sit on the council to ensure fairness for its members.

Moreover, similar legislation passed by the House included the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration in its Financial Services Oversight Council, so this amendment would make the composition of the council in both the House and Senate consistent.

Finally, given their size, no single credit union poses a systemic risk to the overall U.S. financial system.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this statement and the supporting letters from the Credit Union National Association, the largest credit union advocacy organization representing nearly 90 percent of America's 8,700 State and federally chartered credit unions, National Credit Union Administration, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Wisconsin in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in Medicare home health payment rates.

Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare millions of dollars each year.

That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare home health benefit continually comes under attack.

The health care reform bill that was recently signed into law by the President includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over the next ten years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health over the next ten years imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation.

These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $18 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it certainly is not in the best interest of our Nation's seniors who rely on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions.

The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years.

In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not penalize everyone.

The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of its validity and accuracy of outcomes.

The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth in the bill.

Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010 will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in the statute.

Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former state legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.

After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today.

First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting state education standards. Specifically, it would permit states to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line.

Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time.

Third, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes.

One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice.

This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act while still ensuring accountability.

Fourth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the states toward meeting this goal every three years, and would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary.

Fifth, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Wisconsin in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in Medicare home health payment rates.

Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare millions of dollars each year.

That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare home health benefit continually comes under attack.

The health care reform bill that was recently signed into law by the President includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over the next ten years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health over the next ten years imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation.

These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $18 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it certainly is not in the best interest of our Nation's seniors who rely on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions.

The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years.

In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not penalize everyone.

The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of its validity and accuracy of outcomes.

The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth in the bill.

Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2010 will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in the statute.

Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former state legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.

After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today.

First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting state education standards. Specifically, it would permit states to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve form, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line.

Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time.

Third, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes.

One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice.

This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act while still ensuring accountability.

Fourth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the states toward meeting this goal every three years, and would allow him to modify the time-line as necessary.

Fifth, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well-qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize April as the 22nd Annual National American City Quality Month. Led by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, American City Planning Directors' Council/American City Quality Foundation, Urban Land Institute, City Planning and Management Division of the American Planning Association, International City/County Management Association, American Public Transportation Association, American Society of Landscape Architects and others, this valuable program brings together a wide range of public and private partners. Their efforts demonstrate what it takes to plan and develop better quality communities addressing vital issues including land use, building design, transportation, housing, parks and recreation, energy efficiency, economic development, environmental protection, sustainability and livability.

City planners across my State of Maine and throughout the Nation are calling on public and private sector leaders to commit to preparing, adopting and implementing a nationwide better quality communities plan that will lead to better planning, redevelopment and development of our Nation's cities and surrounding regions. This is essential to accommodate U.S. Census projected population growth of about 30 million by the year 2020 and 100 million within 30 to 40 years. This is the equivalent of building eleven cities the size of Chicago. Also, it will help to create jobs, stop urban sprawl, guide billions of dollars of investment to improve communities while lowering governmental operating expenses and taxes.

This public-private partnership is necessary to meet the growing need for higher quality, more energy efficient and sustainable housing, buildings, public transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, and industry. All citizens are urged to get involved by contacting their community planners. I applaud these collaborative efforts to improve urban and rural communities across our Nation.

This collaborative planning works. Just last year, Forbes Magazine named Portland, ME, my State's largest city, as the most livable city in America. In addition, Portland's busy Commercial Street was voted as one of the country's great streets by the American Planning Association. The transformation of Portland did not happen by accident. It is the result of citizens and organizations working together. American City Quality Month celebrates this effort. This year our Governor, John Baldacci, proclaimed April as American City Quality Month. Other Governors and officials are invited to do the same.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing Child Abuse Prevention Month. I am honored to be joined by a longtime advocate of children, Senator Dodd, in turning a spotlight on the issue of child abuse and neglect in this country. Senator Dodd and I share a common belief that children should be valued and nurtured by both their families and the larger family of humankind.

The effort to address child abuse transcends ideological and partisan lines. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue--this is an American issue--one that we can't wish away, but that we must face head on and work to eradicate.

Abuse of children occurs in all segments of our society, in rural, suburban, and urban areas and among all racial, ethnic, and income groups. According to the 2008 Child Maltreatment Study compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, during 2008, an estimated 772,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,740 children died as a result.

My home State of Maine is mourning the death of 15-month old Damien Lynn, who was allegedly murdered by his mother's boyfriend. Autopsy reports show that little Damien had broken bones and ribs, head and abdominal injuries, and a human bite mark on his right arm. It is in Damien's memory, and that of the thousands of children who are abused and neglected each year, that I come to the floor today.

The time has come for Americans to unite in an all-out effort to eradicate child abuse. Child Abuse Prevention Month is an opportunity for communities across the country to keep children safe, provide the support families need to stay together, and raise children and youth to be happy, secure, and stable adults.

To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, ``You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members.'' This resolution is sad commentary that we have to do more to protect those who are in the dawn of life, the most vulnerable among us, our children.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motions and amendments so that I may offer an amendment which is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment I have offered which would waive the job-killing fines in the reconciliation bill in cases where an employer hires an unemployed worker.

I think these penalties will come as a surprise to most Americans. With unemployment at 9.7 percent, and a real concern that we may be on the brink of a double-dip recession, most Americans will be shocked to learn that Washington wants to slap fines on small businesses that choose to hire more workers. But the new health care law does exactly that.

Incredibly, this reconciliation package makes this problem even worse. Here is how. In the reconciliation package, small businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees would be fined $2,000 for each worker on their payroll. The way the formula works, the fines kick in at $40,000 when a small business reaches 50 employees. After that, they go up at a rate of $2,000 for each new worker.

Imagine what this will do to job growth. Our country relies on small businesses to create new jobs. In fact, time and time again, you will hear on the Senate floor that small businesses are the engine of the American economy. I certainly agree with that. But this reconciliation bill creates a wall--40,000 dollars high--around any small business that wants to grow past 49 workers.

Think what these job-killing penalties will mean to the unemployed. More than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs since 2007. More than 6 million have been unemployed longer than 27 weeks. But beyond even these grim statistics, the true picture of unemployment in this country is actually far worse. Broader measures of unemployment show that 16 percent of the American people are without jobs or cannot find full-time work.

I recognize some in this body will argue we should not be bothered with these penalties now because they do not become effective right away. But those who would say such a thing simply do not understand how small businesses work. We are not talking about big multinational conglomerates here. We are talking about Main Street businesses that are already struggling. Many of them are family-owned enterprises. They do not look at their employees as interchangeable parts, and they do not make hiring decisions to ``get rich quick.'' When they bring a new employee on board, they are choosing someone who they know will become part of their team and the face of their business to the community they serve.

Having these fines on the books will discourage job growth now, no matter when they become effective, because small businesses will not hire and train workers today just to fire them tomorrow when these penalties go into effect.

Ironically, less than a week ago, the President signed into law the so-called HIRE Act. It contains a provision authored by Senators Schumer and Hatch to provide a temporary tax credit to encourage companies to hire unemployed workers. That is a creative idea, and I supported it. But for the life of me, I do not understand how a week later we could vote for a bill that imposes fines that will hit small businesses when they hire new workers.

This makes no sense to me, and it is completely contrary to the policy we passed a week ago when we gave tax credits to encourage businesses to hire workers who are unemployed. With this bill, we are going to fine them if they hire workers who are unemployed if they cannot afford to provide them with health insurance. That is why I am offering this commonsense amendment. It would waive the fines, the onerous fines that are in the reconciliation bill when small businesses and medium-size businesses hire workers who were previously unemployed.

The mechanism to determine which workers qualify is exactly the same one we adopted in the jobs bill passed by this body last week. It is the height of irony that we would even consider imposing penalties and fines on businesses that are hiring more workers, particularly during this difficult economic time.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, just last week we passed the HIRE Act, which included a tax credit offered by Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch to encourage companies to hire unemployed workers. It makes no sense for any of us to have voted for that bill and then not to support the amendment that I have offered.

The amendment I am offering would waive the onerous fines that are in this bill for small businesses that hire unemployed workers. If you voted for the HIRE Act giving a tax credit, why in the world would you support a policy of imposing penalties on businesses that hire unemployed workers?

Mr. President, I urge support of the amendment.

Madam President, let me begin by saluting the leadership of my colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman. He has been so persistent in ensuring a debate on this program. His leadership on this issue, as on every other issue I work with him on, has been exemplary.

I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Ensign, Voinovich, Feinstein, and Byrd in offering this amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

More than 5 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low- income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high quality education.

The program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, it is dismaying that critics would seek to dismantle the program.

The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students participating in the program, parallels what we have learned from recent independent studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education.

In December 2009, University of Arkansas researchers released the findings of a new evaluation entitled ``Family Reflections on the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.'' The project sought to ``capture the contextual nuances of what is

happening in the lives of the families experiencing the Program'' by conducting a qualitative assessment.

The study showed that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the Washington Scholarship Fund.

In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall; students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional three months of learning.

As I noted previously, this amendment has bipartisan support and was crafted using input from Members on both sides of the aisle. As chair and ranking member of the Financial Services General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin and I held a hearing last September on funding for schools in the District. We heard from stakeholders representing DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This amendment is the byproduct of their input as well as that of my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin.

In addition to providing scholarships for low-income students and their family's real choice in education, the amendment authorizes $20 million for DC public schools and $20 million for pubic charter schools--so that all students in the District have access to a high quality education.

Further, our amendment includes provisions supported by Senator Durbin. Among other things, it provides that all participating OSP schools maintain a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the DC government, that core subject matter teachers in OSP schools must hold at least a bachelor's degree, and that all OSP schools must be accredited.

We all must place what's best for students first. If Congress were to discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated that 86 percent of the students would be reassigned to schools that did not meet ``adequate yearly progress'' goals in reading and math for the 2006-07 school year. We simply cannot afford to allow that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

We are talking about averting a true tragedy by adopting the Lieberman amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. I do not use that word ``tragedy'' often nor lightly. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the futures of young people in the District of Columbia. That is what is at stake in this debate. It is that serious.

It is important to go back and look at the history of the DC scholarship program. More than 5 years ago, the leaders of the District of Columbia became so frustrated with the institutionalized failure within the District's public school system that they came to Congress and worked with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to design a new three-sector strategy that provided new funding for public schools in the District, for public charter schools, and for scholarships for low-income children who might choose to attend a private school.

Working with the District's leaders, Congress then passed the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education, an education that would give them the opportunity to excel, the opportunity for a bright future. That is what the debate is about. Indeed, we have seen incredible enthusiasm for this program, and the three-pronged approach has helped DC's public schools to get on the path of improvement and DC's charter schools which are also providing some quality educational opportunities.

But a young man who testified before our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee put it very well when he was asked by a Senator who opposed the DC scholarship program why we should not, instead, focus solely on the DC Public Schools.

He said: Mr. Senator, the DC schools didn't get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better overnight.

Clearly, what he was saying was, why should he lose the opportunity for a good education and a bright future while he is waiting for DC Public Schools to get better.

I join in the admiration for Michelle Rhee, who is working very hard with the mayor and with the city council to improve the DC Public Schools. We are making progress. We rejoice in that progress. We support that progress. That is why we are continuing to provide Federal funding for DC's public schools. But as this young man told us, the DC schools did not get bad overnight, and they are not going to get better overnight, no matter what extraordinary leadership they are receiving.

The DC scholarship program has clearly filled a need, a fact that is illustrated by the long lines of parents waiting to enroll their children in the program. Since its inception, more than 7,000 students have applied for scholarships. With demand so high, with the stakes so great, it is dismaying, to say the least--I think it is tragic--that critics are seeking to dismantle this program.

The inspiring stories we have heard from parents and students participating in the DC scholarship program parallel what we have learned from recent independent, rigorous studies conducted by the University of Arkansas and the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education. Senator Lieberman and I heard firsthand from the researcher who conducted that study. He told us parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in this program, and they also told us the students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships, the equivalent of an additional 3 months of learning. Given that these students had not been enrolled in these better schools for very long, that is impressive progress. I am certain as their education continues, if it is allowed to continue, we will see even more substantial educational gains.

It is so disappointing--it is discouraging and dismaying--that we are having to fight for the continuation of a program that each and every day is making a difference in the lives of these children.

I am going to challenge my colleagues, before you decide how you are going to vote on this program, if you are inclined to vote against our amendment, first talk to just one student who is enrolled in this program and their parents. If you then can come to the floor and, in good conscience, vote against the Lieberman-Collins amendment--well, suffice it to say, I don't think our colleagues can, in good conscience, vote against our amendment, if they have talked to any of the students and their families who are benefiting from this program.

It would be truly a tragedy for the children of the District of Columbia if this program is not continued.

Let me end my comments with one startling fact. If Congress were to discontinue funding for DC opportunity scholarships, it is estimated 86 percent of the students would be returned to schools that are failing schools, schools that did not meet the adequate yearly progress standard for reading and math for the 2006-2007 school year. We simply cannot, in good conscience, allow that to happen.

I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the facts revealed by our hearing, the rigorous studies that have been done to compare educational progress, the recommendations of the chancellor of the DC Public Schools and, most of all, I hope they will listen to the students and to the families whose lives have been changed for the better due to this program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a mid-winter tradition throughout New England and across my home State of Maine--talking baseball. Not just any baseball, of course, but Boston Red Sox baseball.

These discussions, whether they take place around the kitchen wood stove or the office water cooler, range from the team's storied history to the prospects for the upcoming season. The heroes of the past, Yastrzemski, Williams, and so many more, are recalled, as are the more recent stars, such as Schilling and Ramirez.

At times, fans reminisce about a young man who, although his career was cut tragically short, continues to inspire through his athleticism, competitive spirit, and generosity. His name was Aristotle George Agganis. His friends called him Harry. He will always be remembered as the Golden Greek.

Harry Agganis was born in Lynn, MA, in 1929. Although he is known as a baseball player, he first made his mark in football as a star quarterback for Boston University. As a sophomore in 1949 he set a school record for touchdown passes. He left school in 1950 to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps.

When he completed his service to our nation, he returned to college, setting a school record for passing yards, winning the Bulger Lowe Award as New

England's outstanding football player, and becoming Boston University's first All-American in football. Upon his graduation, he was offered a lucrative contract to play football for the Cleveland Browns but chose instead to sign with the Red Sox so he could remain near his widowed mother.

Here are a few stories that illustrate the character of this young man and the esteem in which he is held.

While still a student in 1953, Harry Agganis was inducted into the new Boston University Hall of Fame. He declined gifts of a car and $4,000 from his classmates and instead asked that the cash equivalent be put toward establishing a scholarship for Greek-American students with financial need.

On June 6, 1954, he homered at Fenway Park and scored the winning run as the Red Sox beat the Detroit Tigers. Following the game, he changed into a cap and gown in the Sox clubhouse, ran down Commonwealth Avenue in time for the graduation ceremonies on the B.U. campus, and received his bachelor's degree in education.

As the 1955 season opened, he was off to a good start, but on June 2 he was hospitalized with pneumonia. He rejoined the team 10 days later but fell ill again. He died on June 27 of a pulmonary embolism. Ten thousand mourners attended his wake.

His career was brief, but his name lives on. In 1956, a 1,000-seat baseball facility, Harry Agganis Stadium, was dedicated in his honor at Camp Lejeune, NC, where he served. A memorial plaque placed at the field reads, ``Endowed with peerless talent, Corporal Agganis exemplified the finest in competitive spirit and sportsmanship. An All- American football player, and later a professional baseball player, his outstanding accomplishments in the field of athletics were an inspiration to other Marines who served and were teammates with him during his career in the Marine Corps.''

He was inducted posthumously into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1974. In 1995, Gaffney Street in Boston was re-named Harry Agganis Way. In 2004, Agganis Arena was dedicated in his honor on the Boston University campus. Each year, members of the New England Sportswriters Association present the Harry Agganis Award to the outstanding New England college football senior.

His character and accomplishments have been set to music by a talented songwriter and devoted Red Sox fan in Bangor, ME, named Joe Pickering, Jr. Joe recently retired after 30 years of dedicated service as executive director of Community Health and Counseling Services in Bangor. It is my pleasure to have printed his inspiring lyrics into the Record:

The Golden Greek

Time washes away people who depart

You who remain cherish heroes of the heart

They seldom grace earth but, not for long

The Golden Greek lives in this song

Too many athletes spell team as m-e

The Golden Greek knew team meant only we

This All-American truly stood apart

The Golden Greek was simply pure of heart

Four hundred churches honored for forty days

The man who touched many hearts in so many ways

Fifty thousand said goodbye as his church choir

Sang love for the man who set the sports world afire

Harry Agganis stirred heart and soul

Did God take him so he would never grow old?

Heroes live forever though Harry died young

The song of the Golden Greek will always be sung

Thousands of marines in the Carolina sun

Named a field for the marine who left no deed undone

The first Olympic heroes won olive wreaths

His silver wreath from the king and queen of Greece

The seventh child of immigrants born in Lynn

Learned playing the game right was the way to win

He hit major league pitching at fourteen years of age

Then went on to glory on the sports page

This Hall of Famer scrambled forty yards from the pocket

He threw feather passes or shots like a rocket

Though he looked and played like a Greek god

This flesh and blood hero was one with the lord

He gave to the poor and church, gifts he received

Harry lived the golden rule, as he believed

His smile warm and bright like sunshine in July

Why at twenty-six did this Red Sox star die?

The NFL played games in honor of his name

All for a man who never played a pro game

He planned to play for the Sox and the NFL

What might have been only God can tell

This hero of the heart was like no other

His last words: were ``take care of my mother''

In the pantheon of sports, the Golden Greek reigns

His mem'ry glowing like the Olympic flame

Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.

Madam President, on my own behalf and on behalf of numerous members of the Republican caucus who have expressed concerns to me, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage.

Madam President, this is the House-passed bill that extends for 30 days the following expiring provisions: unemployment insurance, which is so important to those who are struggling--there are 500 Mainers whose benefits expired on Sunday; the COBRA health insurance extension subsidies for the unemployed; important flood insurance; highway funding; small business loans; the provisions of the American Recovery Act that include those small business loan provisions; the doctors fix. If we do not act, physicians all across this country are going to have a 21-percent cut in their Medicare reimbursements.

I hope we can act together for the American people. Again, I want to emphasize that this issue is so important to Senators on both sides of the aisle. Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns to me that this was not done last week when it should have been done. So, Madam President, I do propose the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.

The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well- being of the American people.

The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and supports millions more indirectly.

These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, to cause a horrifying loss of life.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans to address identified vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered facilities that are non-compliant.

In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the facility decides would best address the particular facility and its security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the Department's 18 performance standards.

Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.

Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting the very highest security risks.

To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and any other available information, the Department then ascertained whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 1 and 2.

For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.

The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According to the Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.

Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for security-related regulation.

Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by radically overhauling the law.

Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the Department over CFATS implementation.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.

The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an approach

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere on the supply chain.

For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated areas.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.

Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, costing thousands of American jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.

In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical innovation and industry confidence.

Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these capabilities.

Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing.

As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program.

If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its job implementing CFATS.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.

The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well- being of the American people.

The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and supports millions more indirectly.

These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, to cause a horrifying loss of life.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans to address identified vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered facilities that are non-compliant.

In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the facility decides would best address the particular facility and its security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the Department's 18 performance standards.

Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.

Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting the very highest security risks.

To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and any other available information, the Department then ascertained whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 1 and 2.

For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.

The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According to the Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.

Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for security-related regulation.

Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by radically overhauling the law.

Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the Department over CFATS implementation.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.

The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an approach

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere on the supply chain.

For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated areas.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.

Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, costing thousands of American jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.

In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical innovation and industry confidence.

Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these capabilities.

Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing.

As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program.

If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its job implementing CFATS.