Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Today marks the end of the 60-day waiting period following notification to Congress that the necessary certifications were made by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding this change in policy. I am pleased that this discriminatory law was relegated to the past early this morning at midnight.

I am proud to have played a role in this repeal, and I thank my colleague Senator Lieberman who, when prospects seemed most dire, worked with me to develop a strategy to pass a stand-alone version of the bill that ultimately resulted in repeal of DADT.

It was almost 4 years ago when I first asked ADM Michael Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. That was the first, but not the last, time that Admiral Mullen courageously testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee about the need to debate and evaluate the DADT policy.

It seemed to me then--as it does now--that our Nation should not refuse the service of patriots who willingly answer the call to arms, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. If individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, to be deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk their lives for the benefit of their fellow citizens, then we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military.

Since 1993, more than 13,000 men and women have been dismissed from service and countless more have been barred from serving. Society has changed a great deal in the last 18 years since President Clinton signed the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' law, and I am proud Congress took the lead to repeal the law.

I thank the LGBT community for their outreach and support of this effort. I especially was honored by the number of servicemembers both active duty and retired who have thanked me for this effort, or who have shared their personal story of how the law was affecting their lives. I recently received one of those stories on a postcard with a stamp from overseas that was signed ``An Army Soldier.'' I would like to have his message printed in the Record because his words represent the sentiment of so many other brave men and women of our fighting forces.

His postcard says this:

Dear Senator Collins, I will still be deployed in

Afghanistan on 20 September when [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] is

finally repealed. It will take a huge burden off my

shoulders--a combat zone is stressful enough on its own . . .

I will repay your courage with continued professionalism.

With a spirit of service such as this, is there any doubt we should be welcoming this warrior into our military? I want to thank this anonymous soldier for taking the time to share this important message with me and with my colleagues. Because of soldiers like him, our country remains strong and our military united in a common cause with the freedom of individual expression guaranteed by the liberties they fight to preserve.

Mr. President, today I recognize the contribution of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program of the Army National Guard. The soldiers in this exceptional program perform military honors at the funerals for Maine's fallen warriors and veterans. They pay tribute to the men and women who have served our Nation, and provide comfort and dignity to the families during their time of loss.

On August 27, the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program performed its seven thousandth military funeral, a duty they have carried out since October 2004. Since that time, approximately 30 highly skilled and carefully selected soldiers of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program have performed funerals for all of Maine's soldiers who have been killed in action, as well as funerals for veterans of every era, including one in July 2010 for a Civil War Veteran, William Wallace Clark, whose remains were recovered in July 2009 from an unmarked grave beside that of his wife. The team performed 424 military funerals in its first year, and this year they will perform over 1,300--sadly more than 3 funerals per day as our World War II veterans are leaving us.

The soldiers of the Maine Military Funeral Honors Program proudly and respectfully render final honors for our fallen heroes, both past and present, from Fort Kent to Kittery, in the sweltering heat or the bitter cold. They never break military bearing and conform to the same exacting standards that are expected of all honor guards across the country, including those at Arlington National Cemetery.

The Maine Military Funeral Honors Program provides services to 96 percent of the Army veteran population in the State of Maine, a remarkable achievement unmatched by any other State. This year, the program will likely achieve 100 percent. As they continue to meet the growing number of requests to honor those who have answered the call to serve, I continue to be impressed by this exceptional program's dedication to honoring Maine's fallen Army veterans. On the occasion of their seven thousandth military funeral, it is an honor for me to pay homage to those who provide final honors to the best Maine and America have to offer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell. Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined. Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is plummeting.

Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations.

The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of my colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from these burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers.

Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts joined me in introducing this bill.

Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee this fall.

But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or our international competitiveness.

Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George W. Bush and President Obama.

Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other pending air regulations, could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of work. That is 18 percent of that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation and job creation.

And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by $4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by a staggering $1.3 billion.

That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It says:

These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying

manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose.

The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments.

The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the economy at least $100 million. This is

nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year of the Bush administration.

Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think it is important that I put that on the record.

It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between.

Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise appropriate oversight.

The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs-- jobs our economy desperately needs.

During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their decisionmaking.

I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated:

American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out''

would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a

deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying

jobs and economic growth.

I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this 1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune.

I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act, which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to work.

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

Mr. President, last month's dire economic news is a call to urgent action to get America working again. In August, our Nation produced no net new jobs. Productivity fell. Home sales fell. Construction spending fell. The manufacturing index declined. Unemployment is stagnant at 9.1 percent, and consumer confidence is plummeting.

Businesses, our Nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new Federal regulations.

The Regulatory Time-Out Act, which I am introducing today with 16 of my colleagues, provides job creators with a sensible breather from these burdensome new regulations. This would give businesses time to get back on their feet, create the jobs that Americans so desperately need, and enhance the global competitiveness of American workers.

Let me make clear that we also need to reform the process for issuing regulations. Earlier this year I proposed the CURB Act, which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act would require agencies to examine the costs and benefits of proposed rules, prohibit them from attempting to set rules through unofficial guidance documents--thus circumventing the public notice and comment period--and provide businesses with relief from first-time paperwork violations when no harm comes from the violation. Senators Barrasso and Roberts joined me in introducing this bill.

Indeed, as I am sure you are aware, many of our colleagues have recognized the need to reform the regulatory process and have introduced their own proposals. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has already held three hearings on regulatory reform this year, and I expect this issue will be a priority for our committee this fall.

But the fact is, our economy cannot wait for Congress to complete an overhaul of the regulatory process. If we want to create more jobs, we must act now. We must send a clear signal to the job creators that we have heard them. That is why I believe we must have a timeout from any significant new regulation that would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or our international competitiveness.

Under my bill, no significant final rule that would have an adverse impact could go into effect during a 1-year moratorium. This timeout would cover major rules costing more than $100 million per year, and other rules that have been considered ``significant'' under Executive orders going back to President Clinton and followed by President George W. Bush and President Obama.

Let me give an example of a rule that would be covered by the 1-year moratorium I am proposing. A rule that would be covered by this definition is EPA's Boiler MACT rule. I am sure the Presiding Officer is familiar with this rule. This one regulation, if it were fully implemented, could cost Maine's employers alone hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, a jobs study just released shows that Boiler MACT, along with other pending air regulations, could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the country to close, putting more than 20,000 Americans out of work. That is 18 percent of that industry's workforce. That shows you the potent and terrible impact excessive regulation can have on job preservation and job creation.

And that is just for starters. Once these mills close, the businesses that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. Estimates are that nearly 90,000 Americans would lose their jobs, wages would drop by $4 billion, and government at all levels would see revenues decline by a staggering $1.3 billion.

That is why, along with Senator Ron Wyden, I have introduced a Boiler MACT bill that 24 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already cosponsored. Our bill has been endorsed by 292 employer organizations and individual businesses--292 businesses and organizations representing employers. That shows you how worried our job creators are about the impact of just this one set of rules. Their letter sums up the impact of the Boiler MACT rule very plainly. It says:

These rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-paying

manufacturing jobs that our Nation cannot afford to lose.

The Boiler MACT regulations are exactly the kind of significant rules that my Regulatory Time-Out Act is intended to reach. The moratorium applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board as well as executive branch departments.

The impact of the regulatory burden under President Obama can be seen in the pages of the Federal Register. As my colleagues know, the Federal Register is the publication for all Federal regulations. Last year alone, the Federal Register expanded by nearly 82,600 pages, a level higher than any year under President Bush. Worse yet, the Obama administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost the economy at least $100 million. This is

nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year of the Bush administration.

Let me clarify that the legislation I am proposing exempts those rules that are needed in emergencies such as imminent threats to public health or safety, as well as rules that are necessary to enforce our criminal laws, and with respect to military or foreign affairs. I think it is important that I put that on the record.

It also exempts rules that would reduce the regulatory burden, in order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of American workers to compete. Unfortunately, those rules that actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between.

Finally, my bill requires that within 10 days of passage, agencies and departments must submit to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget the list of rules they believe are exempt from the 1-year moratorium. That is important to make sure the intent of the law is followed and that Congress and the administration can exercise appropriate oversight.

The intent of my bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs-- jobs our economy desperately needs.

During the August recess, I asked employers throughout the great State of Maine what it would take to encourage them to add jobs. To a person, no matter what line of business these employers were in, no matter what the size of their workforce, each one of them replied that Washington needed to stop imposing crushing new regulations; that these job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies; that they needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their decisionmaking.

I am pleased that the Regulatory Time-Out Act has been endorsed by the NFIB, our Nation's largest small business advocacy group, and by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. My bill has also been welcomed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated:

American businesses need immediate relief. A ``time out''

would allow both the regulators and the regulated to take a

deep breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying

jobs and economic growth.

I agree completely. I will ask that the letters from the NFIB, the SBEC, and the statement by the Chamber of Commerce, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I am honored to have the following colleagues as cosponsors of this 1-year regulatory moratorium: Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cornyn, Hoeven, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Kyl, Moran, Roberts and Thune.

I urge all of our colleagues to support the Regulatory Time-Out Act, which is a critical step toward easing the regulatory uncertainty and costs that are keeping our job creators from getting Americans back to work.

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

Mr. President, in 1855 in Warsaw, Poland, Blessed Angela founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Felix, an order dedicated to serving the poor, the sick, and the disabled. Today, thousands of Felician Sisters carry on a tradition of compassionate service around the world.

Today I wish to pay tribute to one of their number, a remarkable woman in Bangor, ME, the city where I live. Her name is Sister Mary Norberta Malinowski, but she is known and loved throughout Maine simply as Sister Norberta. She has dedicated her life to serving God by serving those in need.

Sister Norberta became a registered nurse in 1956 and began her career as one of the first pediatric nurse practitioners at Massachusetts General Hospital. After earning advanced degrees in public health and management, she received faculty appointments at Harvard Medical School and the Boston College Graduate School of Nursing.

In 1982, Sister Norberta became president and chief executive officer of St. Joseph Hospital in Bangor. As she prepares to step down after 29 years of service, her accomplishments are being celebrated by the Maine Legislature, the city of Bangor, the Honor Society of Nursing, the Maine chapter of Business and Professional Women, and many others.

There is much to celebrate. Under Sister Norberta's courageous and visionary leadership, St. Joseph has been transformed into the largest community hospital in Maine. She was instrumental in bringing many firsts to the region and to the State, from digital mammography and laparoscopic surgery to allowing fathers in the delivery room.

The Felician Sisters were founded with a particular focus on serving the Polish countryside. Sister Norberta continues that tradition by leading the effort to ensure primary care services for rural Maine and to organize small community hospitals under the Maine Health Alliance to create a statewide network of care.

Sister Norberta's contributions as a health care executive are only part of her inspiring story. She has given thousands of hours of her personal time to charity and has applied St. Joseph's facilities to such needs as providing laundry and food services to the area's

homeless shelters. Countless other quiet acts of kindness testify to her caring heart and deep humility.

The 16th century Capuchin friar canonized as St. Felix was known in his time as ``the saint of the streets of Rome'' for his daily journeys through the city dispensing food, medicine, and comfort to the poor, the sick, and the troubled. Sister Norberta has lived that legacy through the streets of Bangor and the country roads of Maine, and I join in thanking her for her blessed service.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard from delegating vessel inspection and certification authority to a foreign-based classification society that also provides these services on behalf of the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria.

I am joined in the effort to close this critical loophole by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Begich. With the introduction of the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011, we seek to end U.S. relationships with foreign-based classification societies that also represent nations like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Each year, non-governmental classification societies conduct more than 4,500 statutory inspections of U.S. flagged vessels to verify that these vessels meet international maritime conventions and national regulatory requirements. World-wide, more than 100 governments have established relationships with classification societies. In addition, the vast majority of commercial ships are built to and surveyed for compliance with the standards developed by classification societies.

The relationship between classification societies and the U.S. Government was established in statute in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, when the Secretary of the Department overseeing the U.S. Coast Guard was granted the authority to delegate certain inspection and certification services to the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS, or another recognized Class Society. In 1996 Congress expanded this program to allow foreign-based classification societies to also serve on behalf of the U.S. Government in this capacity. Today, there are four foreign-based classification societies that have established Memorandums of Understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct these inspections on the Coast Guard's behalf.

While this act would allow this relationship between the U.S. Government and foreign-based classification societies to continue, it would eliminate a loophole in the law that allows the foreign-based classification societies that represent the United States to also represent the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. Ironically, the current law provides more latitude to foreign-based societies than we allow the American Bureau of Shipping. As a U.S.- based non-profit, non-governmental organization, ABS is restricted from providing such services in Iran under existing Iranian Transaction Regulations. Yet, the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, does not prevent foreign-based classification societies from representing both the U.S. and Iranian governments.

With this in mind, my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to prohibit the U.S. from obtaining vessel inspection, certification, and related services from a foreign-based class society that also provides these services on behalf of the Iranian, North Korean, North Sudanese, or Syrian governments. For the United States to maintain such relationships runs directly contrary to the spirit of United States policy.

It is important that we all understand the special nature of the relationship between classification societies and our Government and take action to ensure that our Government is represented by classification societies in a manner befitting of our nation's values and consistent with U.S. foreign policy. For these reasons, my colleagues and I believe it is imperative that we amend the law to prohibit this activity, and we urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard from delegating vessel inspection and certification authority to a foreign-based classification society that also provides these services on behalf of the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria.

I am joined in the effort to close this critical loophole by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Begich. With the introduction of the Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 2011, we seek to end U.S. relationships with foreign-based classification societies that also represent nations like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Each year, non-governmental classification societies conduct more than 4,500 statutory inspections of U.S. flagged vessels to verify that these vessels meet international maritime conventions and national regulatory requirements. World-wide, more than 100 governments have established relationships with classification societies. In addition, the vast majority of commercial ships are built to and surveyed for compliance with the standards developed by classification societies.

The relationship between classification societies and the U.S. Government was established in statute in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, when the Secretary of the Department overseeing the U.S. Coast Guard was granted the authority to delegate certain inspection and certification services to the American Bureau of Shipping, ABS, or another recognized Class Society. In 1996 Congress expanded this program to allow foreign-based classification societies to also serve on behalf of the U.S. Government in this capacity. Today, there are four foreign-based classification societies that have established Memorandums of Understanding with the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct these inspections on the Coast Guard's behalf.

While this act would allow this relationship between the U.S. Government and foreign-based classification societies to continue, it would eliminate a loophole in the law that allows the foreign-based classification societies that represent the United States to also represent the governments of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria. Ironically, the current law provides more latitude to foreign-based societies than we allow the American Bureau of Shipping. As a U.S.- based non-profit, non-governmental organization, ABS is restricted from providing such services in Iran under existing Iranian Transaction Regulations. Yet, the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, does not prevent foreign-based classification societies from representing both the U.S. and Iranian governments.

With this in mind, my colleagues and I have introduced this legislation to prohibit the U.S. from obtaining vessel inspection, certification, and related services from a foreign-based class society that also provides these services on behalf of the Iranian, North Korean, North Sudanese, or Syrian governments. For the United States to maintain such relationships runs directly contrary to the spirit of United States policy.

It is important that we all understand the special nature of the relationship between classification societies and our Government and take action to ensure that our Government is represented by classification societies in a manner befitting of our nation's values and consistent with U.S. foreign policy. For these reasons, my colleagues and I believe it is imperative that we amend the law to prohibit this activity, and we urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to GEN James E. Cartwright, who is retiring after 40 years of accomplished military service. Since becoming the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 4, 2007, General ``Hoss'' Cartwright has testified numerous times and provided expert testimony, leadership, and advice to Congress, the President, and the American people regarding our Nation's security and the future of our Armed Forces.

General Cartwright hails from Rockford, IL. He graduated from the University of Iowa in 1971 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps shortly thereafter. The general served as a naval flight officer in the F-4 and as a pilot in the F-4, OA-4 and the F-18. His flying career culminated with command of the First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan. The general is also a distinguished graduate of the Air Command and Staff College and earned his master of arts in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College.

After an assignment as the Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment, J-8, on the Joint Staff, then-Lieutenant General Cartwright was selected for promotion to general and became the first Marine Corps officer to lead U.S. Strategic Command. While at STRATCOM, General Cartwright led the development of strategies during a rapidly evolving national security environment, particularly in the areas of cyber, space, nuclear proliferation, and missile defense. He reorganized the command to increase interagency cooperation and streamlined operations. As a result of the changes the general implemented at STRATCOM, the effectiveness of the command for the deployed warfighter increased substantially to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

During the last 4 years, General Cartwright has served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of his top priorities has been to reduce the loss of American lives in combat by leveraging technology and streamlining acquisition processes to quickly iver new capabilities to the battlefield. His efforts to lead the MRAP program resulted in a 50 percent decrease in deaths attributed to improvised explosive device attacks.

The general can take pride in many other notable accomplishments, including the integration of technologies that enabled the destruction of a failing satellite by a missile for the first time and the successful raid against Osama bin Laden.

During his service, General Cartwright took every opportunity to recognize the efforts and sacrifice of the 2.4 million active, guard and reserve members of the Armed Forces and their families. He remains actively engaged for the benefit of our wounded warriors and always remembers the families of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on our battlefields. General Cartwright will be remembered for his strategic intellect and his ability to drive innovative change. His tenure leaves a lasting legacy to the Armed Forces. I appreciate his extraordinary service to our country and wish him all the best in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. President. On August 22, 1911, more than 1,000 people, including Governor Frederick Plaisted, gathered in the small downeast Maine town of Steuben to dedicate the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library. Given that the crowd was far larger than the entire population of the town and the difficulty of travel from the State capital to Maine's easternmost county in those days, this clearly was an important event.

Its importance was twofold. First, the people of Steuben worked hard to wrest a living from the sea; it was a life that offered the rewards of independence in surroundings of great natural beauty, but few of the amenities found in more prosperous, less remote towns. Now, thanks to this marvelous gift, they had a center for intellectual and spiritual growth, a place to come together as a community.

Just as important as the gift was the giver. Henry Dyer Moore was born in Steuben in 1842, the son of a carpenter and shipwright. From that modest start, he went on to achieve remarkable success in business, with interests that ranged from snuff to railroads and banking. His career took him to the centers of commerce, but his heart never left Steuben.

In the century since, the people of Steuben have turned that gift into a treasure. Today, the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library hosts concerts, plays, adult education classes, and many other events. The library resources are considerable and modern, and are a great asset to the entire region, including the students at the Ella Lewis Grammar School. The building is more used than ever, and more beautiful than the day it was dedicated.

There is another fascinating aspect to this story. Henry D. Moore had a cousin, 6 years younger. He, too, came from a seafaring family of Steuben, and he, too, went on to achieve astonishing success. John Godfrey Moore was a pioneer in the telegraph industry and one of the most prominent international financiers of his day. Like his older cousin, he never forgot the place of his birth. The land he bought, preserved, and kept open to the public on the Schoodic Peninsula near Steuben is now one of the most spectacular sections of Acadia National Park.

One might simply observe that philanthropy ran in the Moore family. The greater truth is that such generosity runs throughout Maine and across America. Achieving success and then giving back to the place and the people that instilled the values that led to success is among the highest qualities of our national character.

Cherishing the gift and building upon it for the generations to come is another. That quality is demonstrated today by the people of Steuben, ME, and I offer my congratulations as they gather again to celebrate the centennial of the Henry D. Moore Parish House and Library.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Alexander, Landrieu, Pryor, and Toomey. Our legislation is straight forward: it would allow the EPA the time it needs, by its own estimate, to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers.

Our bill includes four key provisions. First, it provides the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it will give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline from 3 years to 5 years. Third, our bill will direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, our legislation will help ensure that the rules are achievable by real- world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve Federal regulations.

At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in attempting to draft and implement these complicated rules, which if written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs.

To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs.

The EPA's proposed ``boiler MACT'' rules, which would affect tens of thousands of boilers, have been an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Maine. The forest products industry, in particular, is the economic backbone of many rural areas in our country, including in Maine. Mill managers and workers in Maine have expressed their concern to me about the impact of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship.

Since these rules were first proposed in April 2010, I have been very troubled that the cost of implementation would

be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to industry estimates, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. This is simply unacceptable in this economic climate.

Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead dump the biomass in landfills and switch to fossil fuels. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars.

My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these new boiler MACT rules in April 2010. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules.

It is important to remember that, under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or ``MACT'' rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real world operating practices of the facilities that will be affected by this rule.

In March 2011, I also asked Administrator Jackson at a hearing to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits may be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget, such as Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, about the very negative impacts EPA's Boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry.

In 2010, the EPA did request more time from the court to analyze and prepare the boiler MACT rules after it received thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns the agency had not originally considered. In response, the EPA appealed for an additional 15 months to implement the rule, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, this plea was rejected by the D.C. District Court, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days.

The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. Our bill will provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that businesses in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens.

The EPA has claimed that the cost of the final rule has been lowered by 50 percent since the proposed rule last year; however, this is little comfort to manufacturers because the initial rule, according to industry estimates, was approximately $4 billion in capital costs to the forest industry and over $14 billion for all industrial sectors nationwide. The industry experts that I've talked with are very concerned that the standards are being set so high that they are going to have to make a massive new investment at a time when they can least afford it.

The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. This bill will help ensure that result.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that minimizes the negative effect on the economy, while helping to protect public health and the environment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Wyden, Alexander, Landrieu, Pryor, and Toomey. Our legislation is straight forward: it would allow the EPA the time it needs, by its own estimate, to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers.

Our bill includes four key provisions. First, it provides the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it will give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline from 3 years to 5 years. Third, our bill will direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, our legislation will help ensure that the rules are achievable by real- world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve Federal regulations.

At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in attempting to draft and implement these complicated rules, which if written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs.

To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs.

The EPA's proposed ``boiler MACT'' rules, which would affect tens of thousands of boilers, have been an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Maine. The forest products industry, in particular, is the economic backbone of many rural areas in our country, including in Maine. Mill managers and workers in Maine have expressed their concern to me about the impact of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship.

Since these rules were first proposed in April 2010, I have been very troubled that the cost of implementation would

be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to industry estimates, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. This is simply unacceptable in this economic climate.

Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead dump the biomass in landfills and switch to fossil fuels. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars.

My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these new boiler MACT rules in April 2010. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules.

It is important to remember that, under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or ``MACT'' rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real world operating practices of the facilities that will be affected by this rule.

In March 2011, I also asked Administrator Jackson at a hearing to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits may be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget, such as Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, about the very negative impacts EPA's Boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry.

In 2010, the EPA did request more time from the court to analyze and prepare the boiler MACT rules after it received thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns the agency had not originally considered. In response, the EPA appealed for an additional 15 months to implement the rule, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, this plea was rejected by the D.C. District Court, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days.

The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. Our bill will provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that businesses in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens.

The EPA has claimed that the cost of the final rule has been lowered by 50 percent since the proposed rule last year; however, this is little comfort to manufacturers because the initial rule, according to industry estimates, was approximately $4 billion in capital costs to the forest industry and over $14 billion for all industrial sectors nationwide. The industry experts that I've talked with are very concerned that the standards are being set so high that they are going to have to make a massive new investment at a time when they can least afford it.

The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. This bill will help ensure that result.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that minimizes the negative effect on the economy, while helping to protect public health and the environment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor 2LT Robert S. Emerson who is coming home to Maine more than 60 years after he served his country during World War II. Lieutenant Emerson perished when the B-24 aircraft he was flying in crashed in the Philippines on April 3, 1945.

His body was recovered in 1947, and he was buried in Leyte, Philippines. In 1949, his remains were moved from his resting place in the Philippines to Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis, MO. In 2008, his remains were exhumed and transferred to the jurisdiction of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in Hawaii, bringing him one step and thousands of miles closer to his home State of Maine. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the relatives of Lieutenant Emerson's family and the other airmen that served with him on his B-24, the Department of Defense was able to guarantee the return home of this fallen service member.

Lieutenant Emerson's long and remarkable journey home is finally coming to an end. On Saturday, July 9, 2011, he will finally be brought to home, to rest alongside his mother and father in Norway, ME. After more than 66 years since he first left home, it is a privilege to welcome home, and honor, a fallen warrior who gave his life in World War II in defense of our Nation.

While no words of mine can console the grief that Lieutenant Emerson's family has felt for too long, I know Mainers and the American people are profoundly grateful for his service. Like so many throughout our history, Lieutenant Emerson left the comfort and safety of home to answer the call of duty to our country. He is now among that valiant legion that has journeyed through the darkest valley to a place of quiet waters and now able to rest at home.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 511

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator DeMint. Yesterday the managers' amendment, which was agreed to, retained the Senate confirmation requirement for the legislative affairs positions so the only thing we are talking about here is the public affairs positions. Most of these positions in Cabinet level departments do not require Senate confirmation under our current process, and heaven help us if these public affairs people are making policy. They are not. They are just the messengers.

We need to reserve the Senate's advice and consent process for policymaking positions or those that have control over Federal funds. Neither of those criteria apply in this case.

I urge the rejection of the DeMint amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business.