Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kohl. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks.

The Federal Government, through the 21st Century Truck Partnership, has for some years provided funding to conduct research and development for the modernization of this industry, in association with private industry partners. Despite the significant potential benefits of hybrid trucks, however, research in this area was eliminated recently to focus on passenger vehicles. This decision was shortsighted.

Truck operators in Maine and around the country are again being hard hit by increases in the price of diesel fuel. Given that our nation relies upon the trucking industry to keep our economy running by providing timely delivery of food, industrial products, and raw materials, we must develop alternatives that make the industry less susceptible to dramatic changes in oil prices. Hybrid power technologies offer tremendous promise of reducing this critical industry's dependence on oil.

Trucks consume large amounts of imported fuels. Successfully transitioning trucks to hybrid power technology will reduce our Nation's oil consumption and improve our energy security. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act directs the Department of Energy to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. Current hybrid technology works well for cars that can be made with lightweight materials and travel short distances. Trucks need to be constructed with heavy materials commensurate with the heavy loads they carry and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel relatively long distances between charges. Thus advances in battery and other technologies are needed to make plug-in trucks commercially viable and will require more advanced technology than is required for passenger cars.

Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data, and make performance comparisons with traditional trucks. Recipients who show promise in phase one will be invited to enter into phase two where they must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. The bill will also sponsor two smaller programs to deal with drive-train issues and the impact of the wide use of plug-in hybrid technology on the electrical grid. In total, the bill authorizes the expenditure of $16 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.

We need a comprehensive approach to modernize commercial transportation in the 21st century. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kohl. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks.

The Federal Government, through the 21st Century Truck Partnership, has for some years provided funding to conduct research and development for the modernization of this industry, in association with private industry partners. Despite the significant potential benefits of hybrid trucks, however, research in this area was eliminated recently to focus on passenger vehicles. This decision was shortsighted.

Truck operators in Maine and around the country are again being hard hit by increases in the price of diesel fuel. Given that our nation relies upon the trucking industry to keep our economy running by providing timely delivery of food, industrial products, and raw materials, we must develop alternatives that make the industry less susceptible to dramatic changes in oil prices. Hybrid power technologies offer tremendous promise of reducing this critical industry's dependence on oil.

Trucks consume large amounts of imported fuels. Successfully transitioning trucks to hybrid power technology will reduce our Nation's oil consumption and improve our energy security. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act directs the Department of Energy to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. Current hybrid technology works well for cars that can be made with lightweight materials and travel short distances. Trucks need to be constructed with heavy materials commensurate with the heavy loads they carry and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel relatively long distances between charges. Thus advances in battery and other technologies are needed to make plug-in trucks commercially viable and will require more advanced technology than is required for passenger cars.

Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data, and make performance comparisons with traditional trucks. Recipients who show promise in phase one will be invited to enter into phase two where they must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. The bill will also sponsor two smaller programs to deal with drive-train issues and the impact of the wide use of plug-in hybrid technology on the electrical grid. In total, the bill authorizes the expenditure of $16 million for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.

We need a comprehensive approach to modernize commercial transportation in the 21st century. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill extends important programs that help to protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague,

Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, including the American Waterways Operators, National Association of Boating Law Administrators, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Association of Marina Industries, National Boating Federation, and National Marine Manufacturers Association.

The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2010, United States ports logged 57,600 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged cargo vessels, bringing 11 million shipping containers to our shores.

Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located.

Our seaports operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. As the air cargo plot emanating from Yemen last fall demonstrated, terrorists remain committed to exploiting commercial shipments as a way of moving explosives or weapons of mass destruction.

Maritime shipping containers are a special source of concern. A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several hundred containers, could be used to conceal a dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st century Trojan horse.

The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship a weapon or explosive across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port.

And the contents of such a container don't have to be something as complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism.

I have had the opportunity to visit seaports and, as one examines some of the Nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' In February, while touring the Port of Miami and Port Everglades with the Coast Guard, I witnessed firsthand the large and sprawling urban populations, cruise ship docks, container terminals, and bulk fuel facilities that are situated around these ports. At other locations, there are large sports stadiums and ferries operating nearby as well.

Add up these factors, and one realizes immediately the death and destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port.

Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 people and wounded hundreds more.

To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize these SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be successful the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination.

The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including offering voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.

The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have improved the security of our ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $300 million per year, as included in the President's budget, is lower than the current $400 million authorization in recognition of the severe budget constraints we face. To address concerns expressed by port authorities and terminal operators from across the country, the bill places deadlines on the Department of Homeland Security to ensure a timely response is provided to port security grant applications, extensions, and cost-share waiver requests.

In addition to continuing and improving critical port security programs, the bill also would strengthen the America's Waterway Watch Program, which promotes voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway.

Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers.

In addition, this legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy next-generation sensors.

This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x- ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with little additional security benefit.

Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure cargo entering the U.S. is safe.

This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x- raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective and feasible.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 will help us to continue an effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of goods on which our economy depends.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill extends important programs that help to protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague,

Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, including the American Waterways Operators, National Association of Boating Law Administrators, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Association of Marina Industries, National Boating Federation, and National Marine Manufacturers Association.

The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2010, United States ports logged 57,600 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged cargo vessels, bringing 11 million shipping containers to our shores.

Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the communities in which they are located.

Our seaports operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. As the air cargo plot emanating from Yemen last fall demonstrated, terrorists remain committed to exploiting commercial shipments as a way of moving explosives or weapons of mass destruction.

Maritime shipping containers are a special source of concern. A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several hundred containers, could be used to conceal a dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st century Trojan horse.

The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship a weapon or explosive across the Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port.

And the contents of such a container don't have to be something as complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and a detonation system could produce 10 times the blast that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism.

I have had the opportunity to visit seaports and, as one examines some of the Nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' In February, while touring the Port of Miami and Port Everglades with the Coast Guard, I witnessed firsthand the large and sprawling urban populations, cruise ship docks, container terminals, and bulk fuel facilities that are situated around these ports. At other locations, there are large sports stadiums and ferries operating nearby as well.

Add up these factors, and one realizes immediately the death and destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass destruction could inflict at a single port.

Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 people and wounded hundreds more.

To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize these SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be successful the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination.

The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including offering voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.

The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have improved the security of our ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $300 million per year, as included in the President's budget, is lower than the current $400 million authorization in recognition of the severe budget constraints we face. To address concerns expressed by port authorities and terminal operators from across the country, the bill places deadlines on the Department of Homeland Security to ensure a timely response is provided to port security grant applications, extensions, and cost-share waiver requests.

In addition to continuing and improving critical port security programs, the bill also would strengthen the America's Waterway Watch Program, which promotes voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway.

Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers.

In addition, this legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy next-generation sensors.

This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x- ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with little additional security benefit.

Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure cargo entering the U.S. is safe.

This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x- raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective and feasible.

The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2011 will help us to continue an effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of goods on which our economy depends.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more management and oversight of major information technology, IT, investments across the federal government.

In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems.

Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic Records Archive initiative.

Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times more than originally planned.

We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil.

Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost- estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to the census price tag. Three billion!

The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for managing large IT projects.

Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that, when federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens.

Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a half.

For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions.

As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and Congressional oversight of the projects.

The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips.

The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed.

If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled.

On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key milestones, and lifecycle costs.

Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of dollars or endanger agency missions.

If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the project until it is brought into compliance.

If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk lists.

I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President. I rise to join Senators Carper, Lieberman, and Brown in introducing a bill that would bring more management and oversight of major information technology, IT, investments across the federal government.

In fiscal year 2011 alone, the federal government plans to spend nearly $80 billion on IT investments, about half of which is for major IT investments. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 40 percent of those major IT investments, totaling nearly $20 billion, are at risk for significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems.

Rampant cost and performance problems in IT investments occur across the government. Most recently, we have seen a total breakdown in the National Archives and Records Administration's, NARA, Electronic Records Archive initiative.

Since 2001, NARA has tried to develop a system to preserve and provide access to a massive volume of electronic records. Originally slated for a 2012 rollout at a cost of $317 million, NARA has had to repeatedly revise the plan and cost estimate and finally decided to produce a scaled-down system this year. Last month GAO estimated the project would cost between $762 million and $1 billion--three times more than originally planned.

We see time and time again with these big IT contracts that requirements are not clear up front, leading to chaos down the road that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Such was the case with the 2010 Decennial Census handheld devices. After spending eight years developing a completely new approach to census-taking, the Census Bureau scrapped plans for using handheld computers and reverted instead back to paper and pencil.

Problems managing the contractor, major flaws in the Bureau's cost- estimates, and kicking the can down the road added about $3 billion to the census price tag. Three billion!

The problems keep coming. DHS has tried twice--since 2004--to integrate its many-siloed financial management systems. The Department spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. DHS tried again only to encounter severe schedule delays. The Department is now planning to roll out the project incrementally, which is of course how they should have started years ago, and is what is recommended under the OMB guidance for managing large IT projects.

Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. While never acceptable, especially now given our current fiscal crisis, we just cannot afford to accept this type of incompetence and mismanagement one more day. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that, when federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens.

Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

For the last several years, Senator Carper and I have pushed the Office of Management and Budget to improve the management and oversight of these IT investments. To help address the concerns we have raised, OMB has instituted several new initiatives over the last year and a half.

For example, in June 2009, OMB announced the creation of the ``IT Dashboard,'' which is a website that displays cost and schedule information about major IT investments, as well as the agency Chief Information Officer's, CIO, evaluation of the status of each project. OMB has also instituted comprehensive face-to-face reviews of these investments, known as ``TechStat'' sessions.

As a result, OMB has reported reducing the life-cycle costs of 15 investments by approximately $3 billion by narrowing the scope of some projects and even shutting down others and cutting the losses. Added transparency from the IT Dashboard, as well as comprehensive reviews via TechStat sessions, should improve agency management and Congressional oversight of the projects.

The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today would require agencies to use the Dashboard in a standardized way. It would also expand inputs to include cost, schedule, and performance data, using a metric called Earned Value Management, EVM. EVM prevents the kind of ``hide the ball'' game that agencies often play to cover up performance shortfalls, cost overruns, or schedule slips.

The bill institutes triggers so that, if an investment deviates more than 20 percent from its original cost, schedule, and performance targets, CIOs would be required to conduct the type of comprehensive TechStat sessions currently taking place at OMB on a more limited scale. These sessions would generate information for Congress as well as the public, by requiring agencies to post the results of the TechStat sessions on the IT Dashboard. These reports would have to describe in detail how the failures occurred, naming names, and describing how exactly the shortcomings are going to be fixed.

If an investment deviates more than 40 percent, the TechStat session would get bumped up to the OMB level, to be run by the Federal Chief Information Officer. In addition to information about how to improve the performance of the project, OMB would be required to provide to Congress a recommendation of whether the project should be pared back or cancelled if it cannot be overhauled.

On top of this aggressive oversight ramp-up, the bill would require agencies to identify and heighten the planning and management for a handful of top priority, most expensive projects. For these ``core'' investments, agencies would submit additional data on performance, key milestones, and lifecycle costs.

Because of their scope and importance to agency missions, these core projects would have lower thresholds for oversight triggers and would get bumped up to OMB TechStat review with a deviation of 20 percent. The ``get-well'' plan would then be sent to Congress and published on the Dashboard for maximum accountability. This early intervention at the highest level would ensure that these critical projects are either saved or scrapped long before they can threaten to waste billions of dollars or endanger agency missions.

If an agency fails to comply with the requirements in the bill for any given project, that would be the end of taxpayer support for the project until it is brought into compliance.

If this bill had been law during the past decade, early warning signs would have alerted Congress and possibly saved some of the billions wasted on so many IT projects currently crowding various high-risk lists.

I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and

Senator Akaka in introducing the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011-- Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements. This bill would help to improve inadequate security at too many of our Federal buildings.

As a Nation, we have learned several hard truths. Terrorists are intent on attacking the United States, and their tactics continue to evolve. The early identification of a security gap can save countless lives if we act promptly to close it. There is no substitute for pre- emptive action to detect, disrupt, and defend against terrorist plots.

As we remember the lives lost when terrorists attacked the United States in 2001, we must avoid complacency. Our country's defenses must be nimble, multi-layered, informed by timely intelligence and coordinated across multiple agencies.

This is difficult work, requiring painstaking attention to detail and an unwavering focus. We must remain vigilant about the threats we face. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates there are significant security problems at Federal buildings where thousands of employees serve thousands more of our citizens every work day.

The Federal Protective Service, FPS, is charged with securing nearly 9,000 Federal facilities and protecting the government employees who work in them, and the Americans who use them to access vital services.

But, independent investigations by the Government Accountability Office, at the request of our Committee, and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General have documented serious and systemic security flaws within the operations of the FPS. These lapses place Federal employees and private citizens at risk.

In April and May of 2009, for example, GAO's undercover investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 Federal office buildings. Every single building GAO targeted was breached--a perfect record of security failure. At each facility, concealed bomb components passed through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. Once inside, the covert GAO investigators were able to assemble the simulated explosive devices without interruption.

A July 2009 GAO report documented training flaws for FPS contract guards, some of whom failed to receive mandatory training on the operation of metal detectors and x-ray equipment. Other contract guards were deficient in key certifications such as CPR, First Aid, and firearms training. All told, GAO found that 62 percent of the FPS contract guards it reviewed lacked valid certifications in one or more of these areas.

This review also found that FPS did little to ensure compliance with rules and regulations and failed to conduct inspections of guard posts after regular business hours. When GAO investigators tested these posts, they found some guards sleeping on an overnight shift.

In another example, an inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine on its conveyor belt. That guard was fired, but he ultimately won a lawsuit against the FPS because the agency could not document that he had received required training on the machine.

A few months earlier, in April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General also found critical failings in the FPS contract guard program. The Inspector General's recommendations included many concrete steps to strengthen contract guard performance, such as improving the award and management of contracts and increasing the amount of training and number of compliance inspections.

These reports demonstrate that American taxpayers are simply not receiving the security they have paid for and that they expect FPS to provide. The reports also show the vulnerabilities facing Federal employees and federal infrastructure because of lax security.

While shining a light on these failings in multiple hearings, our Committee pressed FPS to take action to close these security gaps. Although some tentative steps have been taken by FPS, we can no longer wait for OMB and DHS to implement the absolutely critical security measures necessary to help protect our Federal buildings, our Federal employees, and the American public.

The legislation that I introduce today, with Senators Lieberman and Akaka, would help close these security gaps at our Federal buildings.

First, the bill would codify the Interagency Security Committee, which was established by Executive Order 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, to increase security standards at Federal facilities. The ISC, comprised of representatives from agencies across the government, would establish risk-based performance standards for the security of Federal buildings. FPS would then enforce these requirements based on the risk tier assigned the facility by the ISC.

Prior reports clearly demonstrate that FPS lacks authority to require tenant agencies of a Federal facility to comply with recommended security countermeasures.

For example, although FPS may ask tenant agencies to purchase or repair security equipment like cameras and x-ray machines, these tenant agencies can refuse to purchase or repair the equipment based on cost. Since FPS has no enforcement mechanism, these machines are not upgraded, or remain inoperable, and security suffers. With so much at stake, tenant agencies should not be able to effectively overrule the security experts on the ISC and at FPS.

To address this problem, our legislation would provide FPS the authority needed to mandate the implementation of security measures at a facility. FPS also would have the authority to inspect Federal facilities to enforce compliance.

The bill would allow the FPS Director to charge additional fees if tenant agencies fail to comply with applicable security standards. In such cases, the Secretary also must notify Congress of the non- compliant facilities.

Our bill also would require an independent analysis of FPS's long- term staffing needs.

The government has an obligation to protect our Nation's security, and our Federal buildings are targets for violence. This legislation would provide FPS with stronger authority to improve security at our Federal buildings.

The American public that relies on these facilities and the Federal employees who work in them deserve better and more reliable protection.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and

Senator Akaka in introducing the SECURE Facilities Act of 2011-- Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements. This bill would help to improve inadequate security at too many of our Federal buildings.

As a Nation, we have learned several hard truths. Terrorists are intent on attacking the United States, and their tactics continue to evolve. The early identification of a security gap can save countless lives if we act promptly to close it. There is no substitute for pre- emptive action to detect, disrupt, and defend against terrorist plots.

As we remember the lives lost when terrorists attacked the United States in 2001, we must avoid complacency. Our country's defenses must be nimble, multi-layered, informed by timely intelligence and coordinated across multiple agencies.

This is difficult work, requiring painstaking attention to detail and an unwavering focus. We must remain vigilant about the threats we face. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates there are significant security problems at Federal buildings where thousands of employees serve thousands more of our citizens every work day.

The Federal Protective Service, FPS, is charged with securing nearly 9,000 Federal facilities and protecting the government employees who work in them, and the Americans who use them to access vital services.

But, independent investigations by the Government Accountability Office, at the request of our Committee, and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General have documented serious and systemic security flaws within the operations of the FPS. These lapses place Federal employees and private citizens at risk.

In April and May of 2009, for example, GAO's undercover investigators smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 Federal office buildings. Every single building GAO targeted was breached--a perfect record of security failure. At each facility, concealed bomb components passed through checkpoints monitored by FPS guards. Once inside, the covert GAO investigators were able to assemble the simulated explosive devices without interruption.

A July 2009 GAO report documented training flaws for FPS contract guards, some of whom failed to receive mandatory training on the operation of metal detectors and x-ray equipment. Other contract guards were deficient in key certifications such as CPR, First Aid, and firearms training. All told, GAO found that 62 percent of the FPS contract guards it reviewed lacked valid certifications in one or more of these areas.

This review also found that FPS did little to ensure compliance with rules and regulations and failed to conduct inspections of guard posts after regular business hours. When GAO investigators tested these posts, they found some guards sleeping on an overnight shift.

In another example, an inattentive guard allowed a baby in a carrier to pass through an x-ray machine on its conveyor belt. That guard was fired, but he ultimately won a lawsuit against the FPS because the agency could not document that he had received required training on the machine.

A few months earlier, in April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General also found critical failings in the FPS contract guard program. The Inspector General's recommendations included many concrete steps to strengthen contract guard performance, such as improving the award and management of contracts and increasing the amount of training and number of compliance inspections.

These reports demonstrate that American taxpayers are simply not receiving the security they have paid for and that they expect FPS to provide. The reports also show the vulnerabilities facing Federal employees and federal infrastructure because of lax security.

While shining a light on these failings in multiple hearings, our Committee pressed FPS to take action to close these security gaps. Although some tentative steps have been taken by FPS, we can no longer wait for OMB and DHS to implement the absolutely critical security measures necessary to help protect our Federal buildings, our Federal employees, and the American public.

The legislation that I introduce today, with Senators Lieberman and Akaka, would help close these security gaps at our Federal buildings.

First, the bill would codify the Interagency Security Committee, which was established by Executive Order 6 months after the Oklahoma City bombing, to increase security standards at Federal facilities. The ISC, comprised of representatives from agencies across the government, would establish risk-based performance standards for the security of Federal buildings. FPS would then enforce these requirements based on the risk tier assigned the facility by the ISC.

Prior reports clearly demonstrate that FPS lacks authority to require tenant agencies of a Federal facility to comply with recommended security countermeasures.

For example, although FPS may ask tenant agencies to purchase or repair security equipment like cameras and x-ray machines, these tenant agencies can refuse to purchase or repair the equipment based on cost. Since FPS has no enforcement mechanism, these machines are not upgraded, or remain inoperable, and security suffers. With so much at stake, tenant agencies should not be able to effectively overrule the security experts on the ISC and at FPS.

To address this problem, our legislation would provide FPS the authority needed to mandate the implementation of security measures at a facility. FPS also would have the authority to inspect Federal facilities to enforce compliance.

The bill would allow the FPS Director to charge additional fees if tenant agencies fail to comply with applicable security standards. In such cases, the Secretary also must notify Congress of the non- compliant facilities.

Our bill also would require an independent analysis of FPS's long- term staffing needs.

The government has an obligation to protect our Nation's security, and our Federal buildings are targets for violence. This legislation would provide FPS with stronger authority to improve security at our Federal buildings.

The American public that relies on these facilities and the Federal employees who work in them deserve better and more reliable protection.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system.

The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011, S. 761, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka and McCaskill, would create a Federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience.

The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011, S. 762, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka, McCaskill and Brown of Massachusetts, would provide much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and better management of the federal acquisition workforce.

The Federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2010, acquisition spending by the federal government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $535 billion. The necessary costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will continue to strain the acquisition system in the years ahead.

This unprecedented level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting. The Secure Border Initiative Network, the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census, and the Marine Presidential Helicopter programs are among recent, notorious and costly acquisition failures, which we can ill afford.

These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes.

As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize the actions the Administration has taken recently to improve federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the 110th Congress.

But, no matter how many laws we pass or guidance documents OMB issues, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system ultimately depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce.

While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. And with roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire by 2018, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce are becoming increasingly acute. A well- trained and adequately sized acquisition workforce is critical to managing and overseeing federal spending and the increasingly complex procurements of services and goods.

The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today are designed to address these important long-term goals.

The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act would create a centrally managed, Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the- job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students and retain our best government employees who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service.

Compared to the several existing, agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number; that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives.

Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the Federal Government's entire contract spending, and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is evident that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who understand government-wide needs and perspectives and are able to operate effectively outside of the traditional, single-agency environment.

Specifically, the Acquisition Management Fellows Program would include one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost- estimating, formation and post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts.

Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required, non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant.

In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than 1 year for each year a participant is in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements.

Our second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act, would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.

The FAI has remained largely underutilized due to a lack of organizational clarity, the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, and its intermittent use by a few Federal agencies.

The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that FAI, through its Board of Directors, report directly to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator, and report directly to the OFPP Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce; all existing civilian agency training programs follow guidelines issued by OFPP, which would ensure consistent training standards necessary to develop uniform core competencies; and the OFPP Administrator report annually to Congressional committees of jurisdiction projected FAI budget needs and expense plans to fulfill its statutory mandate.

With respect to its core government-wide functions, FAI would be required to provide and keep current government-wide training standards and certification requirements including ensuring effective agency implementation of government-wide training and certification standards; analyzing the curriculum to ascertain if all certification competencies are covered, or if adjustments are necessary; developing career-path information for certified professionals to encourage retention in government positions; and coordinating with the Office of Personnel Management for human capital efforts.

The administration has identified acquisition workforce development as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and contract performance. While I fully agree with this goal, we need specific and concrete action to solve this problem.

Our legislation would prompt the sustained effort necessary to rebuild the acquisition workforce. While this will take time and investment, I am confident this is a wise investment that will yield substantial returns. Just think about it: if our better-trained acquisition professionals can prevent one failed procurement, it can save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. If they can avoid overpaying one percent of our contract spending, it

will save the taxpayer more than five billion dollars each year. The numbers speak for themselves.

The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act are critically needed and both enjoy bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support them.

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

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

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system.

The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011, S. 761, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka and McCaskill, would create a Federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience.

The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011, S. 762, co-sponsored by Senators Akaka, McCaskill and Brown of Massachusetts, would provide much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and better management of the federal acquisition workforce.

The Federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2010, acquisition spending by the federal government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $535 billion. The necessary costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will continue to strain the acquisition system in the years ahead.

This unprecedented level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting. The Secure Border Initiative Network, the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census, and the Marine Presidential Helicopter programs are among recent, notorious and costly acquisition failures, which we can ill afford.

These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes.

As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize the actions the Administration has taken recently to improve federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the 110th Congress.

But, no matter how many laws we pass or guidance documents OMB issues, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system ultimately depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce.

While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. And with roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire by 2018, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce are becoming increasingly acute. A well- trained and adequately sized acquisition workforce is critical to managing and overseeing federal spending and the increasingly complex procurements of services and goods.

The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today are designed to address these important long-term goals.

The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act would create a centrally managed, Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the- job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students and retain our best government employees who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service.

Compared to the several existing, agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number; that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives.

Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the Federal Government's entire contract spending, and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is evident that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who understand government-wide needs and perspectives and are able to operate effectively outside of the traditional, single-agency environment.

Specifically, the Acquisition Management Fellows Program would include one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost- estimating, formation and post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts.

Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required, non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant.

In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than 1 year for each year a participant is in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements.

Our second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act, would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.

The FAI has remained largely underutilized due to a lack of organizational clarity, the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, and its intermittent use by a few Federal agencies.

The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that FAI, through its Board of Directors, report directly to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator, and report directly to the OFPP Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce; all existing civilian agency training programs follow guidelines issued by OFPP, which would ensure consistent training standards necessary to develop uniform core competencies; and the OFPP Administrator report annually to Congressional committees of jurisdiction projected FAI budget needs and expense plans to fulfill its statutory mandate.

With respect to its core government-wide functions, FAI would be required to provide and keep current government-wide training standards and certification requirements including ensuring effective agency implementation of government-wide training and certification standards; analyzing the curriculum to ascertain if all certification competencies are covered, or if adjustments are necessary; developing career-path information for certified professionals to encourage retention in government positions; and coordinating with the Office of Personnel Management for human capital efforts.

The administration has identified acquisition workforce development as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and contract performance. While I fully agree with this goal, we need specific and concrete action to solve this problem.

Our legislation would prompt the sustained effort necessary to rebuild the acquisition workforce. While this will take time and investment, I am confident this is a wise investment that will yield substantial returns. Just think about it: if our better-trained acquisition professionals can prevent one failed procurement, it can save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. If they can avoid overpaying one percent of our contract spending, it

will save the taxpayer more than five billion dollars each year. The numbers speak for themselves.

The Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act are critically needed and both enjoy bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to support them.

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

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

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing National Child Abuse Prevention Month. I

am honored to be joined by an advocate for children, Senator Kerry, in turning a spotlight on the issue of child abuse and neglect in this country. Senator Kerry and I share a common belief that children should be valued and nurtured by both their families and all of us.

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

Abuse of children occurs in all segments of our society, in rural, suburban, and urban areas and among all racial, ethnic, and income groups. According to the 2009 Child Maltreatment Study compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, during 2009, an estimated 702,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,770 children died as a result.

Last year I became aware of yet another tragic case of child abuse. Maine was mourning the death of 15-month old Damien Lynn. Autopsy reports show that little Damien had broken bones and ribs, head and abdominal injuries, and a human bite mark on his right arm. This year the former boyfriend of Damien's mother will face the consequences of his actions, and I am proud to introduce this resolution again in Damien's memory.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, as well as the Senate resolution to create an expedited confirmation process for some part-time boards and commissions.

I want to commend Senators Schumer and Alexander for their work on this issue and to express my appreciation for all the members of the nomination reform working group--Senators Reid, McConnell, and Lieberman. I was pleased to be a part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort.

The Constitution, in the Appointments Clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who, in his view, is the best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our Government. It also requires that we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment and experience to determine if nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust.

The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service.

National security reasons also compel attention to this problem. The National Journal has noted that ``[p]eriods of political transition are, by their very nature, chaotic'' and that ``terrorists strike when they believe governments will be caught off guard.''

Both the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks on September 11th, 2001, occurred within eight months of a change in presidential administrations. And in March 2004, just three days before Spain's national elections, al Qaeda-linked terrorists bombed Madrid commuter trains.

The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until six months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place.

Countless studies have been written and many experts have opined on how to improve the nomination and confirmation process--from the Brownlow Commission in 1937 to the 9/11 Commission in 2004.

This is also an issue that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. For example, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the Committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of these hearings, the Committee reported out legislation to address concerns that were raised. A few of the provisions of this bill would later be included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

But more work remains to be done. On March 2nd of this year, the Committee held another hearing to review the nomination process. The witnesses echoed the concerns that have been raised over the years by the many commissions and that still remain unaddressed.

Based upon our review, there are a few areas in particular where improvements should be made. The first is to reduce the sheer number of positions subject to Senate confirmation.

In this regard, the National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. When President Kennedy came to office, he had 286 positions to fill with the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. By the end of the Clinton Administration, there were 914 positions with these titles.

Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, there are more than 1,200 positions appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate.

The large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in selecting, vetting, and nominating these appointees. Consequently, administrations can go for months without key officials in many agencies. And when political appointees are finally in place, their median tenure is only about two and a half years.

A second area ripe for reform is to develop a consistent, common form for the nominees to complete in order to streamline the process, save time, and increase accuracy. This also would reduce the cost and burden on nominees.

The White House, Office of Government Ethics, and the Senate need to work together to reconcile the various questions that are asked of nominees. Currently, nominees will often find themselves repeating variations of, or even the exact same, response over and over.

In this regard, I believe Clay Johnson, the former head of Presidential Personnel from 2001 to 2003, made an excellent point. He noted that there is a thick file in the White House ``with every possible piece of relevant information on that person and yet none of that is made available to the Senate.''

A consistent, common form, which a nominee can respond to online, would help to facilitate the flow of information so the Senate can begin its review of the nomination earlier.

Finally, the executive branch also needs to review its own role and responsibilities in the process.

Specifically, the White House should review its background investigation requirements. The extent of the investigation should be tailored to the position. A person nominated to a non-national security-related position should not have to undergo the same detailed FBI background investigation as a nominee to a national security- related position, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the process should make some allowance for people who already have undergone the FBI full-field investigation for a different Senate- confirmed position. Reform of this process would help speed up the review of nominees and aid in the task of recruiting talented people for public service.

It also is the White House's responsibility to ensure that the Office of Presidential Personnel has the appropriate staffing level to meet the demands of a new administration.

As Mr. Johnson noted at our March 2nd hearing, ``[a] new administration has never had the capacity in the first six months to nominate persons for more than 250 cabinet and subcabinet positions, let alone 400 positions, which government reform individuals and groups suggest a new administration should be able to do.''

If these areas can be reformed, substantial time will be saved, and key leadership posts at our federal agencies will not be vacant for nearly as long.

Now, during this mid-term period, two years away from a Presidential election, we have the opportunity to streamline the executive branch nominations process. This can help ensure that the next presidential transition will be as smooth as possible, thwarting the terrorists' belief that they will be able to ``catch us off guard.''

The Schumer-Alexander bill and Senate Resolution go a long way to addressing the concerns that I have highlighted.

The bill will make more than 200 positions direct Presidential Appointments that would no longer require Senate confirmation. Many of these positions have little or no policy role, such as the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Commerce, or are internal management or administrative positions, such as chief financial officers or assistant secretaries for public affairs.

By not requiring Senate confirmation, it will allow these positions be filled at a much faster pace and free up Senate resources to focus on more significant nominees.

The Senate resolution proposes that more than 240 positions on part- time boards or commissions go through a new ``expedited'' confirmation process. These positions will still require the nominee to respond to all committee questionnaires and still provide for the opportunity for closer scrutiny of the nominee, if warranted.

This retains the authority of the Senate over these positions, but streamlines the process, lessening the burden on the Senate for routine, non-controversial nominations and providing for a faster road to confirmation as well.

While we must deliver on our duty to provide advice and consent, reforms are needed to improve the effective operation of government. We all want the most qualified people to serve the President and the Nation. We should, therefore, ensure that the process is not unnecessarily burdensome and that key leadership posts do not go unfilled for long stretches of time. Most of all, we need to reform the process so that good people, whose talents and energy we need, do not become so discouraged that they give up their goal of serving the public.

I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Alexander as a cosponsor of this legislation and the Senate resolution, both of which will help us attract well-qualified people to public service.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2011, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our nation's capital city. I appreciate the co-sponsorship today from 16 of my colleagues: Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Hutchison, Murray, Snowe, Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, Murkowski, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Lieberman, Akaka, Pryor, Merkley, and Begich.

American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. A museum recognizing the contributions of American women is long overdue.

A Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. Over a decade later, although Congress has made commendable provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's roles in our country's history.

It is important to note that taxpayers will not shoulder the funding of this project. The proposed legislation calls for no new federal program and no new claims on the budget. The bill would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum on a tract of land near the Smithsonian Museums located at 12th Street, SW., and Independence Avenue, SW.

In fact, the Museum would be putting dollars in the federal government's pocket in order to occupy this space because the transaction would be at a fair-market value for the land. This bill would be a win-win for the taxpayers and the Museum.

The National Women's History Museum is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

This museum would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and astronaut Sally Ride.

That women's roll of honor would also include a legendary predecessor in the Senate seat I now hold: the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and courage. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, as well as the Senate resolution to create an expedited confirmation process for some part-time boards and commissions.

I want to commend Senators Schumer and Alexander for their work on this issue and to express my appreciation for all the members of the nomination reform working group--Senators Reid, McConnell, and Lieberman. I was pleased to be a part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort.

The Constitution, in the Appointments Clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who, in his view, is the best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our Government. It also requires that we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment and experience to determine if nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust.

The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service.

National security reasons also compel attention to this problem. The National Journal has noted that ``[p]eriods of political transition are, by their very nature, chaotic'' and that ``terrorists strike when they believe governments will be caught off guard.''

Both the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks on September 11th, 2001, occurred within eight months of a change in presidential administrations. And in March 2004, just three days before Spain's national elections, al Qaeda-linked terrorists bombed Madrid commuter trains.

The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until six months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place.

Countless studies have been written and many experts have opined on how to improve the nomination and confirmation process--from the Brownlow Commission in 1937 to the 9/11 Commission in 2004.

This is also an issue that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. For example, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the Committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of these hearings, the Committee reported out legislation to address concerns that were raised. A few of the provisions of this bill would later be included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

But more work remains to be done. On March 2nd of this year, the Committee held another hearing to review the nomination process. The witnesses echoed the concerns that have been raised over the years by the many commissions and that still remain unaddressed.

Based upon our review, there are a few areas in particular where improvements should be made. The first is to reduce the sheer number of positions subject to Senate confirmation.

In this regard, the National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. When President Kennedy came to office, he had 286 positions to fill with the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. By the end of the Clinton Administration, there were 914 positions with these titles.

Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, there are more than 1,200 positions appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate.

The large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in selecting, vetting, and nominating these appointees. Consequently, administrations can go for months without key officials in many agencies. And when political appointees are finally in place, their median tenure is only about two and a half years.

A second area ripe for reform is to develop a consistent, common form for the nominees to complete in order to streamline the process, save time, and increase accuracy. This also would reduce the cost and burden on nominees.

The White House, Office of Government Ethics, and the Senate need to work together to reconcile the various questions that are asked of nominees. Currently, nominees will often find themselves repeating variations of, or even the exact same, response over and over.

In this regard, I believe Clay Johnson, the former head of Presidential Personnel from 2001 to 2003, made an excellent point. He noted that there is a thick file in the White House ``with every possible piece of relevant information on that person and yet none of that is made available to the Senate.''

A consistent, common form, which a nominee can respond to online, would help to facilitate the flow of information so the Senate can begin its review of the nomination earlier.

Finally, the executive branch also needs to review its own role and responsibilities in the process.

Specifically, the White House should review its background investigation requirements. The extent of the investigation should be tailored to the position. A person nominated to a non-national security-related position should not have to undergo the same detailed FBI background investigation as a nominee to a national security- related position, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the process should make some allowance for people who already have undergone the FBI full-field investigation for a different Senate- confirmed position. Reform of this process would help speed up the review of nominees and aid in the task of recruiting talented people for public service.

It also is the White House's responsibility to ensure that the Office of Presidential Personnel has the appropriate staffing level to meet the demands of a new administration.

As Mr. Johnson noted at our March 2nd hearing, ``[a] new administration has never had the capacity in the first six months to nominate persons for more than 250 cabinet and subcabinet positions, let alone 400 positions, which government reform individuals and groups suggest a new administration should be able to do.''

If these areas can be reformed, substantial time will be saved, and key leadership posts at our federal agencies will not be vacant for nearly as long.

Now, during this mid-term period, two years away from a Presidential election, we have the opportunity to streamline the executive branch nominations process. This can help ensure that the next presidential transition will be as smooth as possible, thwarting the terrorists' belief that they will be able to ``catch us off guard.''

The Schumer-Alexander bill and Senate Resolution go a long way to addressing the concerns that I have highlighted.

The bill will make more than 200 positions direct Presidential Appointments that would no longer require Senate confirmation. Many of these positions have little or no policy role, such as the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Commerce, or are internal management or administrative positions, such as chief financial officers or assistant secretaries for public affairs.

By not requiring Senate confirmation, it will allow these positions be filled at a much faster pace and free up Senate resources to focus on more significant nominees.

The Senate resolution proposes that more than 240 positions on part- time boards or commissions go through a new ``expedited'' confirmation process. These positions will still require the nominee to respond to all committee questionnaires and still provide for the opportunity for closer scrutiny of the nominee, if warranted.

This retains the authority of the Senate over these positions, but streamlines the process, lessening the burden on the Senate for routine, non-controversial nominations and providing for a faster road to confirmation as well.

While we must deliver on our duty to provide advice and consent, reforms are needed to improve the effective operation of government. We all want the most qualified people to serve the President and the Nation. We should, therefore, ensure that the process is not unnecessarily burdensome and that key leadership posts do not go unfilled for long stretches of time. Most of all, we need to reform the process so that good people, whose talents and energy we need, do not become so discouraged that they give up their goal of serving the public.

I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Alexander as a cosponsor of this legislation and the Senate resolution, both of which will help us attract well-qualified people to public service.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Washington in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2011, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in Medicare home health payment rates.

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

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

The health care reform bill signed into law by the President last year includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over 10 years. Moreover, these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 billion in additional cuts to home health imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation in the last several years.

These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $20 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it certainly is not in the best interest of our nation's seniors who rely on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions.

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

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

Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their clinical assessment scores. If an individual home

health agency is truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not penalize everyone.

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

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

Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2011 will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.