Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lieberman the Securing Terrorist Intelligence Act. Last Congress, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony from the three top U.S. intelligence officials about the errors the Federal Government made in handling the unsuccessful 2009 Christmas Day terrorist plot. We dodged a bullet that day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a bomb on Northwest flight 253 in the skies above Detroit.

While critical information was not shared prior to Abdulmatallab boarding that plane, a significant error also was committed by U.S. officials after that foreign terrorist had already been detained in Detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. The error became clear during my questioning of the top intelligence officials at the committee's hearing held in response to this failed attack.

I was stunned to learn that the decision had been made to place this captured terrorist into the U.S. civilian criminal court system after just 50 minutes of interrogation--and without any consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or the Secretary Homeland Security. That decision was critical. The determination to charge Abdulmutallab in civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information. We know that the interrogation of captured terrorists can provide critical intelligence and save American lives, but our civil justice system, as opposed to the military detention and tribunal system established by Congress and the President, encourages terrorists to ``lawyer up'' and to stop answering questions.

Indeed, that was what happened in the case of Abdulmutallab. He had provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials immediately after his capture, and we likely would have obtained more information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. Unfortunately, once he was read his Miranda rights and given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions, and that is exactly what he did.

That poor decision-making may well have prevented us from finding out more of the plot's organizers, planners, financiers, logistics support, and other key players. In addition, we may have found out more about future plots originating in Yemen targeting American citizens--possibly even the thwarted October 2010 printer cartridge attacks. Good intelligence is critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. We know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide valuable intelligence. Deciding to charge Abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our nation's top intelligence officials simply defies common sense.

It has been over a year since the arrest, and we are all very thankful that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in America since then. We all know, however, the threat persists. That is why we must redouble our efforts and ensure that when the next terrorist is captured, proper action is taken so we do not miss another opportunity to gain valuable intelligence that could save American lives.

To correct this failure and to ensure that our nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, I am reintroducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. I am very pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who has been such a leader in this area.

Specifically, our bill would require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense before initiating a custodial interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civilian criminal charges against them. These officials are in the best position to know what other threats the United States is facing from terrorists and to assess the need to gather more intelligence on those threats.

If there is a disagreement among the Attorney General and these intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would require the President to resolve the disagreement. Only the President would be permitted to direct the initiation of civilian law enforcement actions--balancing his constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

To be clear, this legislation would not deprive the President of any investigative or prosecutorial tool. It would not preclude a decision to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our civilian criminal justice system. It would simply require that the Attorney General coordinate and consult with our top intelligence officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection of critical additional intelligence information.

This consultation requirement is not unprecedented. Section 811 of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 requires the Director of the FBI and the head of a department or agency with a potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional intelligence can be gathered on his activities.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee noted in its report on the legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement:

While prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the

Department of Justice officials, it stands to reason that in

cases designed to protect our national security--such as

espionage and terrorism cases--prosecutors should ensure that

they do not make decisions that, in fact, end up harming the

national security.

The committee got it right. The committee went on to explain:

[T]he determination of whether to leave a subject in place

should be retained by the host agency.

The history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of Abdulmutallab. In espionage cases, Congress has already recognized that when valuable intelligence is at stake, our national security should trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. This requirement must be extended to the most significant security threat facing our Nation--terrorism.

I encourage the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation. The changes proposed are modest. They make common sense. But the consequences of a failure to act could be a matter of life and death.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lieberman the Securing Terrorist Intelligence Act. Last Congress, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony from the three top U.S. intelligence officials about the errors the Federal Government made in handling the unsuccessful 2009 Christmas Day terrorist plot. We dodged a bullet that day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a bomb on Northwest flight 253 in the skies above Detroit.

While critical information was not shared prior to Abdulmatallab boarding that plane, a significant error also was committed by U.S. officials after that foreign terrorist had already been detained in Detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. The error became clear during my questioning of the top intelligence officials at the committee's hearing held in response to this failed attack.

I was stunned to learn that the decision had been made to place this captured terrorist into the U.S. civilian criminal court system after just 50 minutes of interrogation--and without any consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or the Secretary Homeland Security. That decision was critical. The determination to charge Abdulmutallab in civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information. We know that the interrogation of captured terrorists can provide critical intelligence and save American lives, but our civil justice system, as opposed to the military detention and tribunal system established by Congress and the President, encourages terrorists to ``lawyer up'' and to stop answering questions.

Indeed, that was what happened in the case of Abdulmutallab. He had provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials immediately after his capture, and we likely would have obtained more information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. Unfortunately, once he was read his Miranda rights and given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions, and that is exactly what he did.

That poor decision-making may well have prevented us from finding out more of the plot's organizers, planners, financiers, logistics support, and other key players. In addition, we may have found out more about future plots originating in Yemen targeting American citizens--possibly even the thwarted October 2010 printer cartridge attacks. Good intelligence is critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. We know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide valuable intelligence. Deciding to charge Abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our nation's top intelligence officials simply defies common sense.

It has been over a year since the arrest, and we are all very thankful that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in America since then. We all know, however, the threat persists. That is why we must redouble our efforts and ensure that when the next terrorist is captured, proper action is taken so we do not miss another opportunity to gain valuable intelligence that could save American lives.

To correct this failure and to ensure that our nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, I am reintroducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. I am very pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who has been such a leader in this area.

Specifically, our bill would require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense before initiating a custodial interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civilian criminal charges against them. These officials are in the best position to know what other threats the United States is facing from terrorists and to assess the need to gather more intelligence on those threats.

If there is a disagreement among the Attorney General and these intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would require the President to resolve the disagreement. Only the President would be permitted to direct the initiation of civilian law enforcement actions--balancing his constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

To be clear, this legislation would not deprive the President of any investigative or prosecutorial tool. It would not preclude a decision to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our civilian criminal justice system. It would simply require that the Attorney General coordinate and consult with our top intelligence officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection of critical additional intelligence information.

This consultation requirement is not unprecedented. Section 811 of the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 requires the Director of the FBI and the head of a department or agency with a potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional intelligence can be gathered on his activities.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee noted in its report on the legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement:

While prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the

Department of Justice officials, it stands to reason that in

cases designed to protect our national security--such as

espionage and terrorism cases--prosecutors should ensure that

they do not make decisions that, in fact, end up harming the

national security.

The committee got it right. The committee went on to explain:

[T]he determination of whether to leave a subject in place

should be retained by the host agency.

The history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of Abdulmutallab. In espionage cases, Congress has already recognized that when valuable intelligence is at stake, our national security should trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. This requirement must be extended to the most significant security threat facing our Nation--terrorism.

I encourage the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation. The changes proposed are modest. They make common sense. But the consequences of a failure to act could be a matter of life and death.

Mr. President, in these challenging economic times, it is a pleasure to recognize a business that is growing and creating new jobs as it demonstrates environmental stewardship and community citizenship. The Poland Spring Water Company of Maine is such a business.

The pure, natural spring water found in Maine's Western Mountains has been prized by residents and travelers since the earliest days of our Nation. In 1845, Hiram Ricker began bottling this water and a company was born. By 1904, the water had gained international praise earning medals of excellence at the Columbian Exposition and the World's Fair. The Ricker Inn, which opened a decade later, hosted such illustrious guests as Presidents Cleveland and Taft.

Today, Poland Spring is one of the best-selling bottled spring water brands in North America. Its bottling plants in three Maine communities provide some 800 good-paying, skilled jobs. Its annual payroll of $40 million and $65 million in purchases of goods and services from other Maine companies make it a mainstay of our State's rural economy. Its generous support for schools, fire and rescue, conservation, and many other causes strengthen our communities.

Three years ago, Poland Spring opened its newest plant in the small town of Kingfield with 40 workers. This year, employment stands at 70 and the Kingfield operation was recently named ``The Best Plant in North America'' by Poland Springs' parent company, Nestle Waters. That is an outstanding record of growth and accomplishment in such a short time, but it doesn't surprise me to see a Maine facility achieve this distinction.

Poland Spring does not just bottle water--it is a diligent guardian of Maine's precious groundwater resources. The company's extensive monitoring efforts to protect water quality and the local watershed set a standard for the industry worldwide. From its ultra-light plastic bottle and energy-efficient building design to its operation of the largest biodiesel trucking fleet in Maine, Poland Spring's commitment to the environment is seen at every step of the process.

I congratulate the Poland Spring Water Company for more than 160 years of contributions to the State of Maine and the Kingfield facility for its recognition as the best in North America.

Mr. President, yesterday I offered three amendments to the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Bill to make commonsense reforms to our regulatory system. Today, Senators Roberts and Barrasso join me in offering the ``CURB Act''--which stands for ``Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens.'' This legislation combines the provisions of those three amendments to force federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth.

As I explained yesterday, all too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so.

The CURB Act does three things: first, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

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

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

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

In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies, which requires them to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Bush's Executive Order.

Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and all the jobs it supports. Our bill would provide access to SBA assistance to small businesses in a situation where they face a first-time, non-harmful paperwork violation. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Each of these provisions has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. I urge my colleagues to support the CURB Act, which contains these important reforms to our regulatory system.

Mr. President, yesterday I offered three amendments to the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Bill to make commonsense reforms to our regulatory system. Today, Senators Roberts and Barrasso join me in offering the ``CURB Act''--which stands for ``Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens.'' This legislation combines the provisions of those three amendments to force federal agencies to cut the red tape that impedes job growth.

As I explained yesterday, all too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do so.

The CURB Act does three things: first, it requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

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

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

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

In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies, which requires them to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify this provision of President Bush's Executive Order.

Third, the CURB Act helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and all the jobs it supports. Our bill would provide access to SBA assistance to small businesses in a situation where they face a first-time, non-harmful paperwork violation. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Each of these provisions has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. I urge my colleagues to support the CURB Act, which contains these important reforms to our regulatory system.

Mr. President, unfortunately, all too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and regulations. And so, I am introducing three amendments to the Small Business Reauthorization bill to force Federal agencies to cut the redtape that impedes job growth.

The first of my three amendments requires Federal agencies to analyze the indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.

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

My second amendment obligates Federal agencies to comply with public notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as guidance documents.''

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

In 2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which contained a provision closing this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal agencies, which requires them to provide public notice and comment for significant guidance documents. My amendment would essentially codify this provision of President Bush's Executive Order.

My third amendment helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our incredibly complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time, that first penalty could sink the business and all the jobs it supports. My amendment would provide access to SBA assistance to small businesses in a situation where they face a first-time, nonharmful paperwork violation. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements, so long as no harm comes from that failure.

Each of the provisions of these amendments have been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. I urge my colleagues to support these important amendments to our regulatory system.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a program designed to address the unique needs of rural schools. The Rural Education Achievement Program, or REAP, is designed to help level the playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. It is the only dedicated Federal funding stream to aid rural school districts in overcoming the increased expenses caused by geographic isolation.

Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and more than 21 percent of our public school students attend these schools. Students in rural America should have the same access to Federal dollars and a good education as those students who attend school in urban and suburban communities. For this reason, I worked with Senator Kent Conrad in 2001 to author the law creating the REAP program. REAP created two grant programs including the Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program, SRSA, which provides additional funding and flexibility to small rural school districts, and the Rural and Low- Income School Program, RLIS, which provides additional funding for poor rural school districts.

Prior to enactment of this law, rural school districts received funds calculated on school enrollment. In many of these districts, Federal formula programs, which are based on population, do not produce enough resources to carry out the purposes the grant is intended to fund. One school district in Maine, for example, received only $28 in 2001 to fund a districtwide safe and drug-free school program.

In addition, small and rural school districts often forgo Federal education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. Having fewer personnel also creates additional challenges in providing professional development opportunities. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. By allowing rural school districts to combine funds, as well as providing additional funds, REAP gives these districts the levels of resources required to undertake significant reform. Funds from this program have already helped to support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, and professional development activities, as well as a vast array of other programs which will help rural districts make progress towards the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act.

In 2007 and 2009, along with Senator Conrad, I cosponsored legislation to reauthorize this important program. Unfortunately, no action has been taken. The REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011 would reauthorize and enact a few focused changes to the law. These changes will allow Federal funds to be even more closely targeted to geographically isolated districts. One important change will allow program eligible districts to participate in the Rural and Low-Income School Program if they would not receive financial benefits from the Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program.

Education is an essential driver for economic development. This rings true especially in rural America, where schools are the linchpin of rural communities. I am encouraged to see that the Maine School Management Association has spoken in support of the REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011. As cochair of the Senate Rural Education Caucus, I will continue to work towards our goal of advancing the educational interests of rural schools and districts.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Maine School Management Association.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a program designed to address the unique needs of rural schools. The Rural Education Achievement Program, or REAP, is designed to help level the playing field for small and high-poverty rural school systems. It is the only dedicated Federal funding stream to aid rural school districts in overcoming the increased expenses caused by geographic isolation.

Nearly one-third of America's public schools are in rural places, and more than 21 percent of our public school students attend these schools. Students in rural America should have the same access to Federal dollars and a good education as those students who attend school in urban and suburban communities. For this reason, I worked with Senator Kent Conrad in 2001 to author the law creating the REAP program. REAP created two grant programs including the Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program, SRSA, which provides additional funding and flexibility to small rural school districts, and the Rural and Low- Income School Program, RLIS, which provides additional funding for poor rural school districts.

Prior to enactment of this law, rural school districts received funds calculated on school enrollment. In many of these districts, Federal formula programs, which are based on population, do not produce enough resources to carry out the purposes the grant is intended to fund. One school district in Maine, for example, received only $28 in 2001 to fund a districtwide safe and drug-free school program.

In addition, small and rural school districts often forgo Federal education dollars because they lack the personnel and the resources to apply for competitive grants. Having fewer personnel also creates additional challenges in providing professional development opportunities. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. By allowing rural school districts to combine funds, as well as providing additional funds, REAP gives these districts the levels of resources required to undertake significant reform. Funds from this program have already helped to support new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities, and professional development activities, as well as a vast array of other programs which will help rural districts make progress towards the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act.

In 2007 and 2009, along with Senator Conrad, I cosponsored legislation to reauthorize this important program. Unfortunately, no action has been taken. The REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011 would reauthorize and enact a few focused changes to the law. These changes will allow Federal funds to be even more closely targeted to geographically isolated districts. One important change will allow program eligible districts to participate in the Rural and Low-Income School Program if they would not receive financial benefits from the Small and Rural Schools Achievement Program.

Education is an essential driver for economic development. This rings true especially in rural America, where schools are the linchpin of rural communities. I am encouraged to see that the Maine School Management Association has spoken in support of the REAP Reauthorization Act of 2011. As cochair of the Senate Rural Education Caucus, I will continue to work towards our goal of advancing the educational interests of rural schools and districts.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Maine School Management Association.

Mr. President, I am proud to once again cosponsor the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act. I am pleased to join with Senators Lieberman, Brown, and Carper in this effort to reauthorize these vital programs. I have always been an ardent supporter of our Nation's fire services. In addition to serving as a cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I was a cosponsor of the original FIRE Act, and an original cosponsor of the FIRE Act reauthorization bills in 2004 and in 2010. Unfortunately, last year's bill did not become law.

The FIRE Act grants program provides fire departments with the support they need to purchase equipment and vehicles, and to conduct the training and exercises necessary to perform their jobs well. Indeed, this is one of the most successful programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

The FIRE Act grants program is an efficient and effective model for delivering grant funding because it has a competitive process for evaluating applications, which are peer-reviewed. It is also successful because monies are provided directly to local fire departments. This bipartisan legislation would retain and build upon these aspects of the FIRE Act program that made it successful in the first place.

In visits across the State of Maine, I have seen first-hand how these grants build the critical response capabilities of local fire departments. Maine has received more than $50 million through the FIRE Act grants program--a testament to the needs of our often rural, volunteer fire departments and proof that the program is succeeding in delivering funds to communities that need it most.

Independent analyses have confirmed that the FIRE Act grants program has been effective. To quote a 2007 study by the National Academy of Public Administration, ``From the standpoint of administrative efficiency, there is broad agreement among stakeholders and observers that the program has been well run. It is a positive case study in the management of a grant program by a government agency.''

I believe this bill will increase the capabilities of our Nation's fire services, and protect the thousands of firefighters and EMTs who put their lives on the line every day.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older persons. Fifteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing, and, by 2030, more than one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed.

Moreover, those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2011 would authorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community- based mental health treatment outreach teams to improve older Americans' access to mental health services. To ensure that these geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it would also include representatives of older Americans or their families and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require state plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include descriptions of the states' outreach to and services for older individuals.

We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and senior organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, and the National Council on Aging.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States like Maine that have a disproportionate number of older persons. Fifteen percent of Maine's population is 65 or older, and, with the highest median age, Maine is the ``oldest'' State in the nation. Moreover, our percentage of older adults is increasing, and, by 2030, more than one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed.

Moreover, those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is developing innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary care settings. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act of 2011 would authorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to fund demonstration projects to support integration of mental health services in primary care settings. It would also support grants for community- based mental health treatment outreach teams to improve older Americans' access to mental health services. To ensure that these geriatric mental health programs have proper attention and oversight, it would mandate the designation of a Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Center for Mental Health Services, and it would also include representatives of older Americans or their families and geriatric mental health professionals on the Advisory Council for the Center for Mental Health Services. Finally, it would require state plans under Community Mental Health Services Block Grants to include descriptions of the states' outreach to and services for older individuals.

We are fortunate today to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. The Positive Aging Act will help to ensure that older Americans have access to these important services. I therefore urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the legislation, which has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and senior organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, and the National Council on Aging.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in introducing the See Something, Say Something Act of 2011.

The number of thwarted and failed attacks in the past few years and the Fort Hood attack, which left 13 people dead and wounded dozens, are sobering reminders that terrorists continue to threaten our nation. We have seen, however, that an alert citizenry can be our first line of defense against terrorist attacks as evidenced by events only a few weeks ago in Texas.

Tips from alert citizens led to an investigation and the eventual arrest of Khalid Aldawsari on a federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Specifically, an alert chemical supplier reported Aldawsari's suspicious attempt to purchase a toxic chemical called phenol to the FBI. Shipping company personnel also notified local police officers about related suspicious behavior. Without these calls to law enforcement, it is possible that a person who wrote in his diary ``it is time for Jihad'' would have carried out an attack or attacks on his numerous intended targets, including dams, nuclear power plants, and former President George W. Bush.

Individuals must be protected from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity. That is why I am again introducing legislation, along with Senator Lieberman, that will provide these important protections.

In the 2007 homeland security law, Senator Lieberman and I authored a provision to encourage people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems. This legislation would expand those protections to reports of suspicious behavior in sectors other than transportation. For example, reports of suspicious activity could be equally important in detecting terrorist plans to attack ``soft targets'' like hotels, shopping malls, restaurants, and religious institutions.

In December 2008, a Federal jury convicted five men from New Jersey of conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix. According to law enforcement officials, the report of an alert store clerk, who stated that a customer had brought in a video showing men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic, triggered their investigation. If not for the report of this vigilant store clerk, law enforcement may not have disrupted this plot against military personnel at Fort Dix. Real life examples like these highlight the need for this bill.

That store clerk's action likely saved hundreds of lives. It reveals a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civic responsibility of all Americans. So we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs.

As a result of the devastating 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Senator Lieberman and I convened hearings held by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine lessons learned from those attacks. These hearings helped bring to light the reality that terrorists might shift their attention from high-value, high-security targets to less secure commercial facilities, where there remains the potential for mass casualties and widespread panic.

Many of the Committee's witnesses during these hearings endorsed the idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector. Indeed, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said that the 2007 law ``made eminently good sense'' and recommended ``that it be expanded [to other sectors] if at all possible.''

The threat is real, and we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs. Our legal system, however, can be misused to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As widely reported by the media in 2006, US Airways removed 6 Islamic clerics from a flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of the their assigned seats and had requested, but were not using, seat belt extenders that could possibly double as weapons. In response to these concerns, US Airways officials removed these individuals from the plane so that they could further investigate.

For voicing their reasonable fears that these passengers could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking, these concerned citizens found themselves as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit and accused of bigotry.

The existence of this lawsuit illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated that there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

The bill we introduce today would provide civil immunity in American courts for any person acting in good faith who reports any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence related to an act of terrorism. Specifically, the bill would encourage people to pass on information to federal officials with responsibility for preventing, protecting against, disrupting, or responding to a terrorist act, or to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, without fear of being sued for doing their civic duty. Only disclosures made to those responsible officials would be protected by the legislation.

Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If they take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me be very clear that this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this protection as cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not intimidate people into silence or prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good faith reports--and that's an important condition in this bill--of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining homeland security. Our bill offers protection in a measured way that discourages abuses.

Each of us has an important responsibility in the fight against terrorism. It is not a fight that can be left to law enforcement alone. The police simply can't be everywhere all the time. Whether at a hotel, a mall, or an arena, homeland security and law enforcement officials need all citizens to alert them to unattended packages and behavior that appears out of the ordinary.

Along these lines, I applaud DHS Secretary Napolitano for establishing the Department's ``If you see something, say something'' campaign and the recent partnerships with various organizations including the NFL. The Department is taking steps to expand this effort with public education and materials for businesses, communities, and citizens. As the Department's campaign continues to grow, there will be a greater need for this legislation as our citizens become better educated.

The National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Town Watch, and other national organizations have endorsed this legislation.

If someone ``sees something'' suspicious, Congress should encourage him or her to ``say something'' about it. This bill promotes and protects that civic duty. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in introducing the See Something, Say Something Act of 2011.

The number of thwarted and failed attacks in the past few years and the Fort Hood attack, which left 13 people dead and wounded dozens, are sobering reminders that terrorists continue to threaten our nation. We have seen, however, that an alert citizenry can be our first line of defense against terrorist attacks as evidenced by events only a few weeks ago in Texas.

Tips from alert citizens led to an investigation and the eventual arrest of Khalid Aldawsari on a federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Specifically, an alert chemical supplier reported Aldawsari's suspicious attempt to purchase a toxic chemical called phenol to the FBI. Shipping company personnel also notified local police officers about related suspicious behavior. Without these calls to law enforcement, it is possible that a person who wrote in his diary ``it is time for Jihad'' would have carried out an attack or attacks on his numerous intended targets, including dams, nuclear power plants, and former President George W. Bush.

Individuals must be protected from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity. That is why I am again introducing legislation, along with Senator Lieberman, that will provide these important protections.

In the 2007 homeland security law, Senator Lieberman and I authored a provision to encourage people to report potential terrorist threats directed against transportation systems. This legislation would expand those protections to reports of suspicious behavior in sectors other than transportation. For example, reports of suspicious activity could be equally important in detecting terrorist plans to attack ``soft targets'' like hotels, shopping malls, restaurants, and religious institutions.

In December 2008, a Federal jury convicted five men from New Jersey of conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix. According to law enforcement officials, the report of an alert store clerk, who stated that a customer had brought in a video showing men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic, triggered their investigation. If not for the report of this vigilant store clerk, law enforcement may not have disrupted this plot against military personnel at Fort Dix. Real life examples like these highlight the need for this bill.

That store clerk's action likely saved hundreds of lives. It reveals a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civic responsibility of all Americans. So we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs.

As a result of the devastating 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Senator Lieberman and I convened hearings held by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine lessons learned from those attacks. These hearings helped bring to light the reality that terrorists might shift their attention from high-value, high-security targets to less secure commercial facilities, where there remains the potential for mass casualties and widespread panic.

Many of the Committee's witnesses during these hearings endorsed the idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector. Indeed, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said that the 2007 law ``made eminently good sense'' and recommended ``that it be expanded [to other sectors] if at all possible.''

The threat is real, and we must encourage citizens to be watchful and to report suspicious activity whenever it occurs. Our legal system, however, can be misused to chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As widely reported by the media in 2006, US Airways removed 6 Islamic clerics from a flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of the their assigned seats and had requested, but were not using, seat belt extenders that could possibly double as weapons. In response to these concerns, US Airways officials removed these individuals from the plane so that they could further investigate.

For voicing their reasonable fears that these passengers could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking, these concerned citizens found themselves as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit and accused of bigotry.

The existence of this lawsuit illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated that there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

The bill we introduce today would provide civil immunity in American courts for any person acting in good faith who reports any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence related to an act of terrorism. Specifically, the bill would encourage people to pass on information to federal officials with responsibility for preventing, protecting against, disrupting, or responding to a terrorist act, or to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, without fear of being sued for doing their civic duty. Only disclosures made to those responsible officials would be protected by the legislation.

Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If they take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me be very clear that this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this protection as cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not intimidate people into silence or prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good faith reports--and that's an important condition in this bill--of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining homeland security. Our bill offers protection in a measured way that discourages abuses.

Each of us has an important responsibility in the fight against terrorism. It is not a fight that can be left to law enforcement alone. The police simply can't be everywhere all the time. Whether at a hotel, a mall, or an arena, homeland security and law enforcement officials need all citizens to alert them to unattended packages and behavior that appears out of the ordinary.

Along these lines, I applaud DHS Secretary Napolitano for establishing the Department's ``If you see something, say something'' campaign and the recent partnerships with various organizations including the NFL. The Department is taking steps to expand this effort with public education and materials for businesses, communities, and citizens. As the Department's campaign continues to grow, there will be a greater need for this legislation as our citizens become better educated.

The National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Town Watch, and other national organizations have endorsed this legislation.

If someone ``sees something'' suspicious, Congress should encourage him or her to ``say something'' about it. This bill promotes and protects that civic duty. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, if the Senator is truly going to wrap it up, I don't object.