Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, to create a commission with the goal of eliminating child abuse fatalities. 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. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced a resolution recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Protect Our Kids Act further represents our commitment to put an end to child abuse in the United States.

Child abuse fatalities are preventable; yet, approximately 1,770 children are reported as dying from child abuse each year, and many experts believe the actual number may be significantly higher. This legislation would establish a commission to develop a comprehensive national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. The commission will include a variety of professionals with expertise in areas such as child welfare advocacy, child development, pediatrics, medical examining, social work, law enforcement and education.

Through new research, hearings and the use and coordination of existing information, the commission will provide a report with their recommendations. In order to develop a comprehensive strategy, the commission must consider several questions including what is the extent to which incidents of child abuse and neglect fatalities are increasing in number, how to develop a system to track and record incidents, and what models exist for preventing child maltreatment deaths.

Increased understanding of maltreatment deaths can lead to improvement in agency systems and practices to protect children and prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to capitalize on the commission's findings. This legislation requires the commission's report to be submitted to relevant Federal agencies and Congressional committees. All agencies with recommendations that fall under their jurisdiction must then submit their reaction and plans to address such recommendations to Congress within 6 months.

Approximately 6 million kids are reported to be abused or neglected each year. We know this can be prevented. This legislation is an important step that Congress and our Nation should take in order to better protect our kids.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, to create a commission with the goal of eliminating child abuse fatalities. 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. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I introduced a resolution recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Protect Our Kids Act further represents our commitment to put an end to child abuse in the United States.

Child abuse fatalities are preventable; yet, approximately 1,770 children are reported as dying from child abuse each year, and many experts believe the actual number may be significantly higher. This legislation would establish a commission to develop a comprehensive national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. The commission will include a variety of professionals with expertise in areas such as child welfare advocacy, child development, pediatrics, medical examining, social work, law enforcement and education.

Through new research, hearings and the use and coordination of existing information, the commission will provide a report with their recommendations. In order to develop a comprehensive strategy, the commission must consider several questions including what is the extent to which incidents of child abuse and neglect fatalities are increasing in number, how to develop a system to track and record incidents, and what models exist for preventing child maltreatment deaths.

Increased understanding of maltreatment deaths can lead to improvement in agency systems and practices to protect children and prevent child abuse and neglect. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to capitalize on the commission's findings. This legislation requires the commission's report to be submitted to relevant Federal agencies and Congressional committees. All agencies with recommendations that fall under their jurisdiction must then submit their reaction and plans to address such recommendations to Congress within 6 months.

Approximately 6 million kids are reported to be abused or neglected each year. We know this can be prevented. This legislation is an important step that Congress and our Nation should take in order to better protect our kids.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. Our legislation provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer.

Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last ten years of combat, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DoD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill.

This legislation would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians.

Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and amputations. Physical and occupational therapists play a critical role in the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery of wounded warriors. They not only serve in medical facilities, but are also embedded with combat brigade teams on the battlefield. They use their medical training and skill to overcome impairments, regardless of the cause to enable service members to overcome disability and succeed in all aspects of life.

The idea for this bill came directly from a visit I had with a wounded Marine from Maine at the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in November. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg contains shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But, his spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat.

However, when I asked him if he had any concerns, while he praised the care he was receiving, he said there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another nine months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.

While the Department of Defense reports that it does not face a shortage in these professions overall, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the active duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need.

This bill is also endorsed by both the American Physical Therapy Association and the American Occupational Therapy Association, who agree this effort will help curtail a possible shortage of these valuable professionals in the future.

I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding in

this bill, it is simply an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professions that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. Our legislation provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer.

Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last ten years of combat, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DoD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill.

This legislation would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians.

Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and amputations. Physical and occupational therapists play a critical role in the prevention of injury, rehabilitation, and recovery of wounded warriors. They not only serve in medical facilities, but are also embedded with combat brigade teams on the battlefield. They use their medical training and skill to overcome impairments, regardless of the cause to enable service members to overcome disability and succeed in all aspects of life.

The idea for this bill came directly from a visit I had with a wounded Marine from Maine at the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in November. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg contains shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But, his spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat.

However, when I asked him if he had any concerns, while he praised the care he was receiving, he said there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another nine months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.

While the Department of Defense reports that it does not face a shortage in these professions overall, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the active duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need.

This bill is also endorsed by both the American Physical Therapy Association and the American Occupational Therapy Association, who agree this effort will help curtail a possible shortage of these valuable professionals in the future.

I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding in

this bill, it is simply an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professions that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy.

Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for small business job creators to help spur job growth.

Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained.

Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding jobs.

Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge- podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works. We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and computers.

We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a ``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's job creators.

Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159 million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time when the economy is still weak. With so many American families struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month.

But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the source of our nation's job growth.

We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the world.

In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be viewed as unacceptable here in the United States.

The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world, so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the worker with the best tools wins.

The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep the American worker ahead of the global competition.

There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has 800 million members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100 billion, but most important, both employ thousands of American workers.

But without the right investment at the right time, these two companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high- tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American story.

It is also important to help established companies stay on the cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit.

Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S'' corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly, but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax on that income on their individual income tax returns.

To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's job engine started again.

If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they are ``the wealthy.'' They are not.

We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it is not subject to the surtax.

The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this

means that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in the running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax, while those who are passive investors will pay higher rates.

This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American workers more productive.

Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill.

With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting and public disclosure requirements.

Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40 billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1 billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000 jobs.

It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout the United States.

I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but essential task.

There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years.

To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800 million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010 levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic, and public health benefits in our states and communities.

Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs.

As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth.

All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.

Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.''

After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements.

In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin.

Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply with these very complex and expensive rules.

Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities.

We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are being used

as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-McCaskill bill requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative job training programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress that contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single agency. Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will be devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other half will be be used to reduce the deficit.

In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy.

Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for small business job creators to help spur job growth.

Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained.

Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding jobs.

Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge- podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works. We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and computers.

We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a ``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's job creators.

Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159 million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time when the economy is still weak. With so many American families struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month.

But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the source of our nation's job growth.

We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the world.

In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be viewed as unacceptable here in the United States.

The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world, so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the worker with the best tools wins.

The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep the American worker ahead of the global competition.

There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has 800 million members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100 billion, but most important, both employ thousands of American workers.

But without the right investment at the right time, these two companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high- tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American story.

It is also important to help established companies stay on the cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit.

Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S'' corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly, but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax on that income on their individual income tax returns.

To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's job engine started again.

If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they are ``the wealthy.'' They are not.

We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it is not subject to the surtax.

The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this

means that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in the running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax, while those who are passive investors will pay higher rates.

This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American workers more productive.

Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill.

With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting and public disclosure requirements.

Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40 billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1 billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000 jobs.

It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout the United States.

I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but essential task.

There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years.

To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800 million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010 levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic, and public health benefits in our states and communities.

Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs.

As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth.

All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's Executive Order.

Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance documents.''

After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,'' rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public notice and comment requirements.

In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this OMB Bulletin.

Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports. Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply with these very complex and expensive rules.

Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural communities.

We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are being used

as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-McCaskill bill requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative job training programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress that contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single agency. Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will be devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other half will be be used to reduce the deficit.

In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

I have carefully considered the background of this nominee and undertaken a full review of her public record as well as the records of the Judiciary Committee hearings. I have also looked closely at the actual staffing needs of the court to which she has been nominated. While my review leads me to conclude that Ms. Halligan is well qualified, I am not convinced that the workload of the court justifies filling the seat, and on that basis, I oppose the nomination.

This vacancy has existed since 2005 when then-Judge John Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court. In June 2006, President Bush nominated Peter Keisler to fill the seat. Despite Mr. Keisler's strong qualifications, Democrats held up his nomination for a total of 918 days; it eventually had to be withdrawn.

Central to their objection to Mr. Keisler's nomination was their contention that the court's caseload did not justify filling the vacancy. As expressed by a Democratic Judiciary Committee member during Mr. Keisler's confirmation hearing and later reiterated by all eight committee Democrats in a letter to the chairman urging the nomination be put on hold:

We are putting the cart before the horse here. . . . Here

are the questions that just loom out there. Is there a

genuine need to fill this seat? Has not the workload of the

D.C. Circuit gone down? Should taxpayers be burdened with the

cost of filling that seat? . . . We have been told repeatedly

that to fill this seat would be a waste of taxpayer money and

a shameful triumph of big government. Why then are we

speeding towards confirmation here?

Since that statement, even with this seat still vacant, statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that the caseload of the DC Circuit has actually continued to decrease markedly over the last several years and that, with a smaller court, more appeals were terminated during this same period

This decrease is evident in both the total number of appeals filed and the total number of appeals pending. Specifically, the total number of appeals filed in the DC Circuit decreased by more than 14 percent between 2005, when 1,379 appeals were filed, and 2010--the latest complete year for which statistics are available--when 1,178 appeals were filed. Meanwhile, with a smaller court, more appeals were terminated during this period. The total number of appeals pending was reduced from 1,463 appeals to 1,293 appeals. This is a decrease of nearly 12 percent.

The shrinking workload is also demonstrated in the per-panel and per- judge statistics. Filings per panel and filings per judge show a decline of nearly 7 percent during this period as well. Pending appeals per panel dropped over 9 percent. Interestingly, the DC Circuit ranks last among the circuit courts in 2010 in this category. That means it has the lightest workload per panel.

Given the declining workloads, the Senate should be debating reducing the staffing for this court, not filling a vacancy. With our massive deficit, belts being tightened everywhere, and critical vacancies existing on other Federal courts, why should we spend the resources-- estimated at over $1 million a year--to fill this seat? Why are we eating up legislative time debating a nominee we likely don't need, instead of moving forward to nominees for vacancies that have become judicial emergencies and demand more immediate attention?

It is discouraging to note that now that the candidate for this seat is a Democratic nominee and not a Republican, all of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have forgotten their concerns about the caseload, even though the court's own statistics show it has markedly declined. In fact, when the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, recently sought to amend a judicial staffing bill before the Judiciary Committee this last October to cut a seat on the DC Circuit, Committee Democrats voted it down.

Mr. President, given the facts, I firmly believe that filling this vacancy before we determine whether the position is or is not superfluous to the court's needs, is indeed, as Judiciary Committee Democrats noted in 2006, ``putting the cart before the horse.'' Until that determination is made, I cannot support filling this vacancy regardless of the nominee's qualifications. Consequently, I will oppose cloture on the nomination.

Mr. President, it is imperative that American citizens detained on U.S. soil be entitled to every protection guaranteed by the Constitution. I am concerned, therefore, that not all of the detainee provisions in the bill provide explicit exemptions for U.S. citizens who might be detained in the United States.

Had the amendment been more narrowly tailored to address that concern, I would support it. However, I unfortunately cannot support the amendment as a whole because it is too sweeping and would eliminate provisions that are important to preserve because they undoubtedly make our country safer. For instance, if this amendment were to pass, the Administration would be free to transfer detainees to countries where there are confirmed cases of detainees who have been released returning to fight against the United States. In addition, the amendment would eliminate a provision that would prevent foreign fighters captured overseas from taking advantage of the very constitutional rights I want to ensure for American citizens.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons--the Presiding Officer--be added as a cosponsor of Senate amendment No. 1155 to the pending bill, S. 1867.

Thank you, Mr. President, for cosponsoring the amendment.

Earlier today the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee came to the Senate floor and asked for Members to come forth with their amendments. I want to speak on my amendments as well as the underlying bill. But I want to begin by commending Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their superior work on this very important piece of legislation.

For this reason I rise in support of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the support they require to execute our Nation's military strategy and to defend freedom around the globe. The legislation will improve the operation of the Department of Defense, it will strengthen congressional oversight of the Department, and it makes fiscally responsible but very difficult choices in order to meet this year's budget caps. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am particularly pleased that this bill fully authorizes the Navy's budget request for shipbuilding. While shipbuilding accounts for fewer than $1 out of every $10 of the Navy's budget, it is a critical component to the strength of our national defense.

The Chief of Naval Operations has testified that a fleet of 400 ships would actually be required to meet the unconstrained demands of the combatant commanders. Due to budget constraints, however, the Navy aims for a fleet that equals 313 ships in the future, but today the Navy has only 285 ships. The DDG-1000 program, the DDG-51 restart, the Virginia Class submarine, and other ships in the shipbuilding budget will help to close the troubling gap between the requirements of the combatant commanders and the number of ships the Navy actually has.

I am particularly proud that the skilled workers of Bath Iron Works in my State are playing such a critical role in building the ships our Navy requires. Bath's excellent performance of delivering ships on time and on budget or under budget to the Navy continues. This year BIW delivered the USS Spruance to the Navy where the destroyer will serve in the Pacific fleet. In addition, BIW has completed more than 60 percent of the construction of the very first DDG-1000. This is a destroyer for which the Navy laid the keel for the ship 2 weeks ago.

So, Mr. President, consider the fact that 60 percent of the construction had been completed before the keel laying ceremony; this is a feat which is all that much more impressive when we consider that the rework rate for ship construction--and this ship is the first in its class of ships--has been less than 1 percent. That is an extraordinary record and a tribute to the high-quality work performed by the men and women of Bath Iron Works.

Last week the President made clear that the United States will not shrink from its role in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, two regions where forward presence and persistence depend on the ships of the U.S. Navy. At a time when the Chinese fleet is larger than our own and is expanding, now is certainly the time to reinvigorate rather than weaken our shipbuilding industrial base to build ships that are capable of operating in anti-access and area-denial environments.

In recent weeks Secretary of Defense Panetta has warned about the negative effect of sequestration on the fragile shipbuilding industrial base and his concern that under this procedure, which would involve automatic cuts that disproportionately fall on the Department of Defense, the Navy could shrink to the smallest force since 1915. Unfortunately, the Navy fleet is already the smallest that it has been since 1916 despite the escalating threats that we face.

So I want to thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Minority Member McCain, and the chairman and ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee as well for recognizing the importance of fully authorizing the President's request for shipbuilding.

This legislation also includes important acquisition reforms to ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for every dollar authorized in this bill. One provision requires the military services to determine if they can save money by performing service-life extension programs for nontactical vehicles and equipment rather than purchasing new gear.

The committee report also seeks to save taxpayer dollars by directing the Air Force to evaluate the annual fuel costs that would be incurred at each candidate base before the Air Force decides where to assign new aircraft, such as the KC-46A tanker.

In addition to providing better value to the taxpayer, the government procurement process should be fair, open, and entirely free from politics. I would hope that is the goal on which every Member of the Senate could agree. Last spring, however, the administration was considering a draft Executive order requiring Federal agencies and departments to collect information about campaign contributions and political expenditures of bidders before awarding any Federal contract. I would suggest to my colleagues that is the antithesis of sound procurement practices.

For the administration to even consider a change that would inject politics into the procurement process goes

in entirely the wrong direction. Such a move would create the perception that political support or opposition is somehow a consideration in selecting the winners and losers among businesses vying for Federal contracts.

To ensure that contracts are kept out of the procurement process, an amendment that I offered with Senators Portman and Brown was adopted by the committee with the wholehearted support of the chairman and ranking member, and I would note that it was adopted without opposition. Our amendment specifically prohibits the Department of Defense from collecting information about political contributions made by companies seeking to conduct business with the Federal Government.

Think what a terrible position that would put contracting officers in. Right now they are just collecting information about the ability of a contractor--or a would-be contractor--to perform on the contract, information about the price they are bidding, and information about past performance. What kind of signal would it send to contracting officers if all of a sudden they are required to collect information about political contributions and expenditures? That would muddy the procurement process. It would imply that somehow political contributions are supposed to be considered in the contract award process when exactly the opposite must be the case.

Another area of particular concern to me is ensuring that our service men and women receive the health care they deserve, particularly as it relates to mental and behavioral health. While the rate of Active-Duty suicides did drop last year, it is very sad to know that almost twice as many Guard members and reservists committed suicide in 2010 compared to 2009. This is a tragedy that the chiefs of the military services, the Secretary of Defense, and the members of our committee are taking very seriously. We don't know enough about the factors why, but we do know that we need to provide better access to counseling and other services to our service men and women, to our reservists, to our Guard members, and to our veterans.

Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has had limited ability to allow its own civilian and contracted mental health professionals in one State to provide care to a patient in a different State. That is the result of complicated State licensing laws with which I am very familiar, having overseen the licensing of mental health professionals for 5 years in my career.

The result is that many in our military, particularly Guard members and Reserve members who live in rural areas where there is a shortage anyway of mental health professionals, must travel long distances to access care.

So the result is that, in many cases, they simply don't access care at all and don't receive the care, the counseling, or the assistance they need and deserve.

This bill includes the provision included at the request of Senator Begich, Senator Brown, and myself to expand access to mental health care providers for those individuals who have served. This provision-- our amendment--will allow mental health care professionals who have been qualified by the Department of Defense to serve members of the Armed Forces and our veterans using ``telehealth''--a capability the Army in particular has sought and believes would be very useful so services can be provided via videoconference, for example, to members who may be far away from the actual mental health professional.

The bill also includes provisions to increase protections for servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault. One in six women will be a victim of a sexual assault in her lifetime. Yet in the military, that terrible statistic is even higher--much higher, I regret to say. As many as one in three women leaving military service report they have experienced some form of sexual trauma.

The provisions that were included in the bill at the request of all the women of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as Senators Brown and Begich were based upon legislation Senator Kerry and I introduced to implement some of the overdue recommendations of the 2009 Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.

Of the 91 recommendations made by this task force, only 26 have been fully implemented by the Pentagon as of May--only 26 of the 91 recommendations. There are a couple of these recommendations that are particularly important and have been included in the bill. These recommendations include providing victims with access to legal counsel and ensuring that each military unit has an adequate number of trained--and I emphasize the word ``trained''--victim advocates and sexual assault response coordinators.

The bill also requires the Department of Defense and the VA to implement a comprehensive process to preserve medical records and evidence related to sexual assaults. This has been a real problem. This process will protect victims' access to VA benefits and will help support the prosecution of their offenders. Finally, in this area, the bill modifies the Uniform Code of Military Justice as requested by the Judge Advocate Generals to improve the likelihood of prosecution of sexual offenders in the military.

While this bill does much to provide for our servicemembers and improve the processes of the Department of Defense, I believe we can further strengthen this bill, and I have offered three amendments with that goal in mind. First, I have introduced amendment No. 1180 with Senators Shaheen and Casey to address the serious threat posed to the American people by the missing portable anti-aircraft missiles from Libya. Our amendment requires an urgent intelligence assessment of the threat these missiles pose to the American people and our allies and it requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to mitigate this threat.

Former Libyan Dictator Colonel Qadhafi acquired more than 18,000 of these portable anti-aircraft missiles--one of the largest stockpiles in the world. Make no mistake, no one has an accurate accounting of where all these missiles have gone or where they are now. While the administration has sent teams to inspect and disable these missiles, where they know they exist, there is no comprehensive strategy in place despite very disturbing reports of Libyan militias refusing to disarm themselves and of terrorist groups seeking these weapons.

Recently, Senator McCain and I had the opportunity at the World Economic Forum in Jordan to meet with the then-Acting Prime Minister of the Libyan Transitional National Council, and we asked him specifically about the issue of the Libyan militias all over the country. He was very forthright in saying he had been unable to bring them under a uniform control--a real issue. Unfortunately, he decided he needed to resign, in part due to that issue. The United States simply must make an accounting for these dangerous weapons that can be aimed to take down a commercial aircraft. This must be a priority in Libya and throughout the region. I appreciate the support Chairman Levin and Senator McCain have expressed for this amendment as well as the helpful suggestions from Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

I have also offered an amendment No. 1155 to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. This program provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer.

Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last 10 years of war, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DOD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill.

My amendment would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians.

Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and have

had to have amputations, for example. Those injuries require significant physical therapy.

The idea for this amendment came directly from a visit I had with a wounded marine from Maine at Bethesda earlier this month. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg has a lot of shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But he has recently been moved into wonderful accommodations-- his own apartment at Bethesda. His spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat.

But when I asked him if he had any concerns, he said while he praised the care he was receiving, there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another 9 months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.

While the Department of Defense reports that overall it does not face a shortage in these professions, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the Active-Duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need.

I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding. However, this is an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professionals that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives.

Finally, I have offered amendment No. 1158, a bipartisan amendment with Senators Begich, Manchin, and Chambliss, regarding the prohibition on the transfer of U.S.-held detainees to a country that has a confirmed case of a released individual who has returned to the fight. This is so needed.

I note this provision was permanent in the detainee amendment that was offered by our chairman and ranking member that was adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate Armed Services Committee during our June markup. Nevertheless, this provision was reduced to a temporary 1-year restriction in the current version of the bill in response to concerns from the administration.

I wish to point out that my amendment would only make permanent the prohibition on the transfer of American-held detainees to a country that has a confirmed case of recidivism. It does not change any of the other transfer provisions in section 1033 of the bill.

Let me make clear that I support the hard work Chairman Levin and Senator McCain have done to craft a permanent detainee policy that has a great deal of support on a bipartisan basis. While there may be genuine disagreement regarding other aspects of the detainee policy provided for in this bill, the amendment I put forth permanently establishing the commonsense policy that we will not return detainees to countries where they are returning to the battlefield should not be an issue that divides this body. In spite of the spirited and lengthy debate in committee on detainee policy, this particular provision in my amendment was not the subject of controversy.

Let me give a little more background on why it is necessary. In September, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the recidivism rate of transferred Guantanamo detainees continues to increase. Twenty-seven percent of transferred detainees--released from Guantanamo to another country is what I am talking about--up from 25 percent last year, are believed to have rejoined the fight, rejoined the cause of terrorism.

Of the 599 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo, there are 161 individuals confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities. Half of those cases have been confirmed by the intelligence community, which is an increase of 5 percent of confirmed cases from March 2009 to October 2010. I believe it is likely, as further intelligence is developed, that the rest will be confirmed-- those suspected cases are likely to be confirmed as well.

Former detainees who were previously mid-level enemy combatants are not simply returning to be another fighter armed with a rifle, although that, too, is clearly unacceptable. According to Michael Vickers, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, former detainees are advancing in the leadership ranks of al-Qaida and its affiliates.

For example, Said al-Shihri was released from Guantanamo in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He participated in a so-called rehabilitation program but then traveled to Yemen. Within 2 years of his transfer, he was involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in September of 2009. He also became a deputy in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group responsible for the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempted package bombs last year. In fact, AQAP is considered by most intelligence analysts as the entity posing the most danger to our homeland.

There are other cases as well. There is a case where one of the detainees who was released to Afghanistan in 2007 told American officials, prior to his transfer:

I [just] want to go back home and join my family and work

in my land and help my family.

Instead, after Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released by the Afghan Government in 2008, he went back to fighting. Press reports indicate this former detainee was promoted as a top deputy in the Taliban and put in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan in 2009. In fact, Newsweek reported that roadside bomb teams under his direction have caused more than half of NATO's 160 deaths in Afghanistan in the first 5 months of this year.

Muhammad al-Awfi was also released from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007. After leaving a rehabilitation program in 2008, he too fled to Yemen. Not long after, he appeared in a video announcing the formation of AQAP. There are other examples as well--example after example after example--of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo and who have returned to the fight.

We need a permanent provision to deal with the recidivism threat. As hopeful as I am that the national defense authorization bill will be passed each and every year--and there is a great record of the Armed Services Committee in that regard--there is no guarantee that legislation will be passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. In fact, we are already 3 months into this fiscal year, and we are weeks from having a Defense authorization bill signed into law, despite the heroic efforts of the leaders of the Armed Services Committee.

Ten years after these wars began, it is clear when we transfer detainees to some countries they may well rejoin the fight against our country and our allies. It is time for Congress to establish a permanent policy in the Defense authorization bill that we will not transfer detainees to countries where there have been confirmed cases of released detainees returning to the fight. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do exactly that by supporting this bipartisan amendment.

Finally, the people of Maine have a proud history of contributing to the defense of our country. Members of the Maine National Guard have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Active-Duty soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors from our State. The Air Guard unit in Bangor continues to perform critical refueling missions for aircraft headed overseas, as it has done since 9/11/2001. Many of the sailors who are deployed serve on 1 of the 101 ships currently underway that were built at Bath Iron Works or on submarines repaired, overhauled, and refueled at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.

From the Maine Military Authority and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center in Limestone to the Pratt & Whitney plant in North Berwick, ME, from cutting-edge composite and renewable energy research at the University of Maine to the innovative high-tech firms throughout our State,

Mainers have faithfully supported our national defense with ingenuity, innovation, and superior craftsmanship.

The investments authorized in this bill support these efforts in Maine and other States throughout the country, and they will continue to ensure that our extraordinary military remains the best trained and the best equipped in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the committee chairman for his extremely generous remarks. It has been a great pleasure to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and I very much appreciate his outstanding leadership.

Senator Levin and I actually go way back to when I was a staffer on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I was a staff director of a subcommittee on which he was the ranking member and chairman. It went back and forth with Senator Cohen. It has been a great honor and pleasure to serve as his colleague during these past 15 years. So I appreciate his comments.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2011. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that harms the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighter and emergency service personnel.

For years, local and state governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders.

Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders departments' abilities to administer the plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive the benefits.

My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow LOSAPs to be elected as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This bill makes these necessary changes, which will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing federal spending.

Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many states that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to more easily recruit and retain personnel. These men and women our local first responders--are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities.

These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senators Schumer and Blumenthal, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Mr. President, I would ask for unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteer Emergency Services Recruitment and Retention Act of 2011. This bill fixes a long-standing problem with the tax code that harms the ability of volunteer fire departments to recruit and retain both firefighter and emergency service personnel.

For years, local and state governments have provided their volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel with different forms of benefits including Length of Service Award Plans, commonly known as LOSAPs. These are pension-like benefits for volunteer emergency responders.

Unfortunately, the way the tax code handles LOSAPs hinders departments' abilities to administer the plans and makes it more difficult for volunteer emergency personnel to receive the benefits.

My bill would simplify the taxation of LOSAPs in two steps. First, it would allow LOSAPs to be elected as deferred compensation plans, and second, it would exempt them from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This bill makes these necessary changes, which will improve access to LOSAP benefits for volunteer emergency responders, without increasing federal spending.

Today, an estimated 180,000 volunteer firefighters across 27 states participate in some form of LOSAP. Many states that do not offer these benefits would be more likely to do so if the federal tax code were simplified. This, in turn, would help volunteer fire departments to more easily recruit and retain personnel. These men and women our local first responders--are the foundation of our emergency response capabilities.

These volunteers put their lives on the line to help protect our communities, and their spirit of selflessness and service should be rewarded. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senators Schumer and Blumenthal, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill through the Senate and into law.

Mr. President, I would ask for unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I rise in support of this conference report, and I encourage our colleagues to join me in voting for this measure.

Let me first thank Chairman Patty Murray and her staff who worked collaboratively with me and with my talented staff throughout this entire process. I also wish to thank Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Blunt, Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and of course the leaders of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran. All of us have worked closely together to usher this first group of appropriations bills to final passage.

I am particularly pleased that we brought these appropriations bills to the floor through the regular order enabling members to examine, debate, and vote in a fair and transparent process. That is a big change from the approach that has, unfortunately, marred the process in previous years when all the appropriations bills--or nearly all of them--were bundled into one enormous omnibus bill that was considered at the last moment in a rushed manner and without the opportunity for full and fair debate and amendment. We didn't do it that way this time, and I think that represents progress.

I am also pleased this conference report contains provisions that are important to the State of Maine.

The Transportation-HUD bill recognizes the fiscal reality of what is now an unsustainable $15 trillion debt, while making critical infrastructure and economic development investments that will help to create jobs. In this bill, we are also meeting our responsibility to very vulnerable populations in our country. The bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint, thereby setting the stage for future economic growth. The proposed nonemergency funding levels for fiscal year 2012 in this bill are nearly $13 billion below fiscal year 2010, a reduction of nearly one-fifth in 2 years' time. These significant savings represent an unmistakable commitment and movement in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

For those reasons, and for many more, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report.

Mr. President, I wanted to add to my earlier remarks in support of the FY 2012 conference report which includes language I co- authored

along with Senator Leahy allowing the heaviest trucks to travel on the interstate highways in Maine and Vermont rather than forcing them onto secondary roads and downtown streets.

Currently, the heaviest trucks in Maine are diverted onto secondary roadways that cut through our downtowns on narrow streets. This creates a major safety concern. It simply makes no sense to force heavier trucks off the highway and onto our smaller roads, jeopardizing the safety of both drivers and pedestrians.

In 2009, I authored a pilot project that allowed trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates for 1 year. According to the Maine Department of Transportation, the number of accidents involving trucks decreased. During the 1-year period covered by the pilot, the number of crashes involving trucks on Maine's local roads was reduced by 72 compared to a 5-year average. This information and other data gathered during the pilot provide proof that this language will increase safety.

In a case study of a freight trip following this route from Hampden to Houlton, when these trucks were allowed to use I-95 rather than Route 2, the driver avoided 300 intersections, 4 hospitals, 30 traffic lights, 9 school crossings, 4 railroad crossings, and 86 crosswalks.

Virtually every safety group in Maine supports this language. These groups include the Maine Association of Police, the Maine State Police, the State Troopers Association, the Maine Department of Public Safety, and the Maine Chiefs of Police. This language is also supported by education and child advocacy groups such as Maine Parent Teachers Association and the Maine School Superintendents Association.

Let me make clear: my amendment does not increase the size or weight of Maine trucks. The only question is on which roads they are allowed to travel.

This has been a long and hard-fought battle. But I am delighted that I was able to convince my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support my provision to allow the heaviest trucks to drive on Federal highways in Maine.

I also want to voice my support for the Agriculture Appropriations title of this legislation. I am particularly appreciative of the efforts of the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Senators Kohl and Blunt, and their staffs for their diligent work to move this legislation forward.

I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Mark Udall, for joining me in co-authoring an amendment to ensure that schools continue to have the flexibility they need to serve children nutritious meals at an affordable cost. We worked with Members from both sides of the aisle and from across the country in crafting a bipartisan amendment that achieves this goal.

Our efforts will go a long way in ensuring that schools can serve healthy meals that meet the nutritional needs of students in a way that fits their budgets. The language overturns arbitrary restrictions proposed by the USDA that would have so restricted the use of potatoes in the school lunch program that a school could not have served a baked potato and an ear of fresh corn in the same week--an absurd result.

We heard from many school advocacy organizations and school and school food service professionals that the rule as proposed was too prescriptive, too limiting, and too expensive. USDA estimates that the opposed rule would have cost as much as $6.8 billion over 5 years. The lion's share of these costs would have been incurred by the state and local agencies.

We were pleased to have the support of the American Association of School Administrators, National School Boards Association, Council of the Great City Schools, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Maine Parent Teacher Association, Maine School Management Association, Maine Principals Association, Maine Department of Education, and so many more.

Mr. President, for these and many other reasons I am proud to support the FY 2012 conference report.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I could call up to make pending en bloc amendments Nos. 1105, 1155, 1158, and 1180, which are at the desk.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Mikulski in submitting a resolution honoring the 100th anniversary of Girl Scouting. In March of 2012, the Girl Scouts of America will celebrate a century as the world's preeminent organization dedicated solely to helping young women develop the character and skills for future success.

The Girl Scouts have a tremendous history that should be celebrated and remembered. Since this organization was founded in 1912 in by Juliette Gordon Low, more than 50 million American girls have learned the values of integrity, leadership, and volunteerism. Today, there are more than 3.7 million members in 236,000 local troops throughout the United States and its territories, Girls Scouts has a global reach, with more than 10 million members in 145 countries. As the program continues to inspire, challenge, and empower young women across our Nation and around the world, its members are seeking to come together and recognize its 100th year of creating challenges, opportunities, and unforgettable memories.

In 2009, I introduced the Girl Scouts USA Centennial Commemorative Coin Act with Senator Mikulski. Our bill, which passed both the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by the President, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint commemorative silver- dollar coins, which will be issued in 2013. Proceeds from the coin sales will benefit the Girl Scouts Centennial Year activities and the preservation of the Juliette Gordon Low Birthplace so that future generations of Girl Scouts will be able to pay tribute to the history of this notable organization.

With more than 16,000 girl and adult members, Girl Scouts of Maine is my State's preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls, all girls, where, in an accepting and nurturing environment, girls build the character and skills for success that last a lifetime. I thoroughly enjoyed my years as a Girl Scout in my hometown of Caribou, ME, including the two summers I spent at Camp Natarswi, so it gives me great pleasure to join in celebrating this important anniversary. On behalf of Girl Scouts in Maine and across America, I am pleased to introduce this resolution in celebration of 100 years of Girl Scouting.

Mr. President, disasters have affected nearly every State this year, and several States were hit particularly hard with devastating tornadoes and historic flooding. CDBG disaster recovery funding is an important tool that has helped States and communities address recovery needs related to infrastructure, housing, and economic development. I recognize that supplemental CDBG funding is important for communities recovering from disasters, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to help communities throughout the Nation.