Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution supporting the ideals and goals of World Water Day. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator John Kerry joining me as the cosponsor of this resolution.

March 22 was established as World Water Day by the United Nations General Assembly to promote awareness of the importance of access to clean water and improved sanitation. More than one billion people lack access to an improved water supply and 2.6 billion people lack access to improved sanitation.

This year's theme, ``Shared Water--Shared Opportunities,'' highlights opportunities to build trust among countries as they manage their common water resources in ways that promote sustainable economic growth. In the U.S. half of the States border shared waters, and there are growing pressures on the environmental quality and use of these waters.

To recognize World Water Day, activities are planned internationally and here in the U.S. Many cities are sponsoring World Water Day benefit walks, runs and musical celebrations. I urge citizens to participate in these activities and recognize this important day.

In 2000, the United Nations adopted a goal to reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015. We have made some progress toward that goal, but more needs to be done. Each day millions of women and girls still spend hours traveling miles to transport water to their homes. In many cases, the source is polluted, leading to disease for them and other members of their families.

The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 provided for U.S. assistance in developing countries to provide equal and affordable access to clean and safe water and sanitation. This access is important to U.S. foreign policy interests, and, more important, is a basic human right.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan resolution condemning the recent, troubling rise in anti-Semitism across the globe. The resolution also calls upon world leaders to speak out against anti-Semitic acts and reaffirms that the United States is committed to making the fight against anti-Semitism a top foreign policy priority.

I am very pleased that Senator Cardin and 40 other Senate colleagues have joined me in saying to the world that we stand tall with the Jewish community against these acts of violence and crimes of hate.

In recent months, there has been a substantial rise in anti-Semitic violence around the globe. We are deeply concerned about the safety and well- being of Jews in Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, where they have faced a significant increase in anti-Semitic attacks, often very violent. These criminal acts include physical and verbal attacks, arson, and vandalism against synagogues, cemeteries, and Holocaust memorials. In some nations, demonstrations have included chants of ``death to Israel'' and expressions of support for suicide terrorism against Israeli or Jewish civilians.

Also distressing are the blatantly anti-Semitic Nazi imagery and Holocaust comparisons. Our resolution rejects attempts to rationalize Jewish hatred or attacks as justifiable expression of disaffection or frustration over Israeli policy and political events in the Middle East or elsewhere. The Nazi imagery and Holocaust comparisons have been prevalent at demonstrations throughout the world. Placards held at many demonstrations have compared Israeli leaders to Nazis, accused Israel of carrying out a ``Holocaust'' against the Palestinians, and equated the Jewish Star of David to the Nazi swastika. This is intolerable. We must speak out against these unacceptable acts of hatred and bigotry.

While we applaud those world leaders who have shown courage by condemning these acts, we call on those who have yet to do so to expressly reject anti-Semitism in their own countries. We must continue to impress upon our allies the critical importance of opposing these disturbing trends, all the while ensuring that our own initiatives to address these forms of hate violence are bolstered.

I urge our colleagues to join our effort to raise awareness of this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with my colleagues Senators Voinovich and Kohl that will strengthen the Federal Government's ability to serve the public at a time when Federal agencies face a wave of retirement of highly experienced employees.

When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce.

On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches three million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years.

Federal agencies, which already must hire more than a quarter-million new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and state and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements.

The Baby Boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers possess.

Research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management.

Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis.

Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive in current law.

Current law mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with Senators Voinovich and Kohl would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides an opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment.

This simple but powerful reform will provide some much needed hiring flexibilities for agencies, especially given the expertise the Federal Government will need to effectively implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing earlier this month where we discussed how oversight entities will meet their responsibilities to ensure that stimulus funds are spent effectively. Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro indicated that the reemployment of annuitants is an essential authority that the Government Accountability Office uses when circumstances arise that require rapid staffing increases. Using statutory authority possessed by GAO, the agency is able to attract and hire back their annuitants without offsetting their pay by the amount of their pension.

Most executive branch agencies do not enjoy similar flexibility as GAO. Instead, current law requires these agencies to offset an annuitant's salary, unless the agency can first obtain a waiver from OPM. This waiver will be granted if the agency demonstrates to OPM that only a particular annuitant is qualified to fill a particular need and the annuitant will only return if his or her salary is not offset. The waiver process is administratively cumbersome, and often prevents agencies from even considering a returning annuitant for an important position.

Whether at GAO or in our Government's Inspectors General offices, experienced, qualified former employees--with institutional knowledge-- could play an important role in oversight of stimulus spending. This point was recently made by both Acting Comptroller General Dodaro and the Chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, Phyllis Fong, in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Inspectors General will have to quickly hire experienced auditors and investigators to ensure critical oversight of stimulus spending. This legislation will allow IG offices to bring back valuable and experienced employees to the Federal Government to ensure aggressive oversight, enhanced transparency, and accountability for taxpayer dollars.

Ensuring an experienced acquisition workforce is available to oversee stimulus spending is just as critical. The government spent $532 billion on contracts last year--a 140 percent increase from 2001 to 2008. At the same time, the Federal Government entered the 21st century with 22 percent fewer federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. As early as 2012, 50 percent of this workforce will be eligible to retire. This means that as our contract spending continues to increase dramatically, our contracting workforce continues to shrink. This legislation will allow agencies to bring in experienced acquisition personnel at a time when they are desperately needed--whether to ensure that stimulus funds are spent wisely or to help administer over $500 billion in government contract spending

Several organizations have endorsed the reforms in our bill, including the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Government Managers Coalition.

I would also note two important points about the bill.

First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first six months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 3,120 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of eight-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 390 days, respectively.

These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment of annuitants.

I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings.

This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers, especially during these tough economic times. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with my colleagues Senators Voinovich and Kohl that will strengthen the Federal Government's ability to serve the public at a time when Federal agencies face a wave of retirement of highly experienced employees.

When we think about the coming demographic shock of millions of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, we usually focus on the cash-flow implications for the Social Security and Medicare programs. But their aging will also have a profound effect on the Federal workforce.

On average, retirements from the Federal workforce have exceeded 50,000 a year for a decade. The numbers will certainly rise in the near future. The Office of Personnel Management calculates that 60 percent of the current Federal workforce, whose civilian component approaches three million people, will be eligible to retire during the coming 10 years.

Federal agencies, which already must hire more than a quarter-million new employees each year, will need to work hard to replace those retirees, as the private sector and state and local governments will be facing the same problem and competing for qualified replacements.

The Baby Boom retirement wave will have another impact. It will cause a sudden acceleration in the loss of accumulated skills and mentoring capabilities that experienced workers possess.

Research has repeatedly shown that, in general, older workers equal or outperform younger workers in organizational knowledge, ability to work independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and sound management.

Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to full-time work on a waiver basis.

Agencies could make use of even more Federal annuitants for short- term projects or part-time work, but for a disincentive in current law.

Current law mandates that annuitants who return to work for the Federal Government must have their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. The bill I introduce today with Senators Voinovich and Kohl would provide a limited but vital measure of relief to agencies who could benefit from the skills and knowledge of Federal retirees. It provides an opportunity for Federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment.

This simple but powerful reform will provide some much needed hiring flexibilities for agencies, especially given the expertise the Federal Government will need to effectively implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing earlier this month where we discussed how oversight entities will meet their responsibilities to ensure that stimulus funds are spent effectively. Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro indicated that the reemployment of annuitants is an essential authority that the Government Accountability Office uses when circumstances arise that require rapid staffing increases. Using statutory authority possessed by GAO, the agency is able to attract and hire back their annuitants without offsetting their pay by the amount of their pension.

Most executive branch agencies do not enjoy similar flexibility as GAO. Instead, current law requires these agencies to offset an annuitant's salary, unless the agency can first obtain a waiver from OPM. This waiver will be granted if the agency demonstrates to OPM that only a particular annuitant is qualified to fill a particular need and the annuitant will only return if his or her salary is not offset. The waiver process is administratively cumbersome, and often prevents agencies from even considering a returning annuitant for an important position.

Whether at GAO or in our Government's Inspectors General offices, experienced, qualified former employees--with institutional knowledge-- could play an important role in oversight of stimulus spending. This point was recently made by both Acting Comptroller General Dodaro and the Chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, Phyllis Fong, in testimony before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Inspectors General will have to quickly hire experienced auditors and investigators to ensure critical oversight of stimulus spending. This legislation will allow IG offices to bring back valuable and experienced employees to the Federal Government to ensure aggressive oversight, enhanced transparency, and accountability for taxpayer dollars.

Ensuring an experienced acquisition workforce is available to oversee stimulus spending is just as critical. The government spent $532 billion on contracts last year--a 140 percent increase from 2001 to 2008. At the same time, the Federal Government entered the 21st century with 22 percent fewer federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. As early as 2012, 50 percent of this workforce will be eligible to retire. This means that as our contract spending continues to increase dramatically, our contracting workforce continues to shrink. This legislation will allow agencies to bring in experienced acquisition personnel at a time when they are desperately needed--whether to ensure that stimulus funds are spent wisely or to help administer over $500 billion in government contract spending

Several organizations have endorsed the reforms in our bill, including the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Government Managers Coalition.

I would also note two important points about the bill.

First, it will not materially affect the necessary flow of younger workers into Federal agencies. The bill contemplates reemployment for part-time or project work of not more than 520 hours in the first six months following the start of annuity payments, not more than 1,040 hours in any 12-month period, and not more than 3,120 hours total for the annuitant's lifetime. In terms of eight-hour days, those figures are equivalent to 65, 130, and 390 days, respectively.

These limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limited-scope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment of annuitants.

I would also note that this bill gives no cause for concern about financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, their retiree health and life insurance benefits would be unaffected by their part-time work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings.

This measure offers benefits for Federal agencies, for Federal retirees who would welcome the opportunity to perform part-time work, and for taxpayers, especially during these tough economic times. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senators Lieberman, Coburn, Levin, Grassley, McCaskill, McCain, and Voinovich, a bill that will provide the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, with the authority it needs to quickly hire experienced, well-qualified staff to conduct rigorous oversight of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

The United States has provided approximately $32 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. Congress created the SIGAR in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act to conduct and oversee independent and objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to these funds.

Although the SIGAR was sworn into office on July 22, 2008, the office has not yet conducted any independent audits or investigations. The SIGAR has filed two quarterly reports, but both of those reports were descriptive in nature and reviewed the work of other oversight entities.

Staffing shortages have constrained the SIGAR's oversight efforts. Although authorized a total of 18 auditors, 13 inspectors, and three investigators, SIGAR had only five auditors, two inspectors, and one investigator as of last week.

SIGAR's efforts to quickly hire experienced staff have been hindered by the often long and difficult government hiring process. The office's hiring needs are further complicated by the challenging task of recruiting well-qualified staff willing to spend a year in a dangerous environment.

The bill that we introduce today will provide the SIGAR with the authority to select, appoint, and employ the staff needed to perform effective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. The authority is similar to that provided to other government ``temporary organizations.'' The legislation will allow SIGAR to identify and quickly hire candidates, avoiding the bureaucratic hurdles that beset the normal civil service hiring process. Employees hired under this new authority can serve until the termination of the SIGAR's office.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which served as the model for the legislation to create the SIGAR, faced comparable hiring challenges. This bill contains hiring authority similar to that provided to the SIGIR so that office could quickly hire experienced staff.

With his staff, the SIGIR has been successful in providing thorough oversight of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Since 2004, the SIGIR has produced 20 quarterly reports, 135 audits, 141 inspections, and 4 ``lessons-learned'' reports. SIGIR's oversight work has saved or recovered more than $81 million in U.S. taxpayer funds and has put $224 million to better use.

If the SIGAR would have had this authority from the office's inception, it likely would be much further along in conducting its oversight work. We expect that once the SIGAR can quickly hire the skilled and experienced auditors and investigators it needs, the office's oversight activities will greatly increase.

I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senators Lieberman, Coburn, Levin, Grassley, McCaskill, McCain, and Voinovich, a bill that will provide the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, with the authority it needs to quickly hire experienced, well-qualified staff to conduct rigorous oversight of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

The United States has provided approximately $32 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. Congress created the SIGAR in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act to conduct and oversee independent and objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to these funds.

Although the SIGAR was sworn into office on July 22, 2008, the office has not yet conducted any independent audits or investigations. The SIGAR has filed two quarterly reports, but both of those reports were descriptive in nature and reviewed the work of other oversight entities.

Staffing shortages have constrained the SIGAR's oversight efforts. Although authorized a total of 18 auditors, 13 inspectors, and three investigators, SIGAR had only five auditors, two inspectors, and one investigator as of last week.

SIGAR's efforts to quickly hire experienced staff have been hindered by the often long and difficult government hiring process. The office's hiring needs are further complicated by the challenging task of recruiting well-qualified staff willing to spend a year in a dangerous environment.

The bill that we introduce today will provide the SIGAR with the authority to select, appoint, and employ the staff needed to perform effective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. The authority is similar to that provided to other government ``temporary organizations.'' The legislation will allow SIGAR to identify and quickly hire candidates, avoiding the bureaucratic hurdles that beset the normal civil service hiring process. Employees hired under this new authority can serve until the termination of the SIGAR's office.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which served as the model for the legislation to create the SIGAR, faced comparable hiring challenges. This bill contains hiring authority similar to that provided to the SIGIR so that office could quickly hire experienced staff.

With his staff, the SIGIR has been successful in providing thorough oversight of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Since 2004, the SIGIR has produced 20 quarterly reports, 135 audits, 141 inspections, and 4 ``lessons-learned'' reports. SIGIR's oversight work has saved or recovered more than $81 million in U.S. taxpayer funds and has put $224 million to better use.

If the SIGAR would have had this authority from the office's inception, it likely would be much further along in conducting its oversight work. We expect that once the SIGAR can quickly hire the skilled and experienced auditors and investigators it needs, the office's oversight activities will greatly increase.

I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, is the time controlled?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.