Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to express my deep concern that the Senate has yet to consider the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011.

As the Presiding Officer is well aware, we should have completed work on this bill and every other appropriations bill before October 1 of last year. But with the Department of Defense, this is becoming increasingly problematic. For this reason, along with two members of the Republican leadership, Senator Alexander and Senator Barrasso, I have filed an amendment to the patent reform bill that would fund the Department of Defense for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Just think what we have done the last 3 weeks. We took up an FAA reauthorization bill. Then we went on recess for a week. And now we are on a patent reform bill. I don't mean to suggest that FAA and patent reform are not important--certainly we could have gone without having a recess--but both of those bills pale in comparison to the urgency of providing our service men and women with the resources they need to carry out their mission.

Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and other military leaders have repeatedly and clearly warned us about the dangers of failing to pass a full-year Defense funding bill. It is hurting our national security and harming our readiness. Secretary Gates' put it bluntly, saying: ``The continuing resolution represents a crisis at our doorstep.'' Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn testified that ``a year-long CR will damage national security.''

At no time in recent memory has Congress failed to pass a Defense appropriations bill. Even when there was a year-long continuing resolution for most of the government during fiscal year 2007, the Congress passed a separate bill funding the Department of Defense. With troops in harm's way, now is not the time to break with that precedent.

If we do not provide the authority for the Air Force to buy unmanned aerial vehicles to fly combat air patrols over Afghanistan, the fighting there will not be halted until we do so. If we do not act to provide the $150 million that has been requested to meet the very specific and urgent requirements of our special forces, we will be failing those who are truly on the frontlines.

Secretary Gates has made it clear, military readiness will suffer because of fewer flying hours for our pilots, fewer steaming days for our ships, and cutbacks in training for home-stationed forces.

A full year's CR will also delay much needed modernization of our military equipment. This would come at a time when our Navy is at its smallest size since 1916 and at a time when the aircraft and our Air Force inventory are older than at any time since the Air Force was created. The Navy will not

be able to procure a second Virginia class submarine nor a DDG-51 destroyer needed to keep costs down and to achieve the minimum size fleet--313 ships--that the Navy has stated is the absolute minimum.

Operating under a full-year's CR also means that the taxpayers are going to end up paying more for less. The Navy would likely have to renegotiate some of its procurements. The Army has already shut down work on the Stryker Mobile Gun System that will likely incur additional costs to restart.

It is also important to recognize that at a time when the American public is most concerned about jobs and the economy, the Defense appropriations bill provides funds that are the source of thousands of jobs in the United States--jobs that will be lost or at least deferred.

The Secretary of the Navy has said that the combined effects of failing to fund the Defense Department will directly affect the strength of the industrial base and that more than 10,000 private sector jobs at shipyards, factories, and Navy and Marine Corps facilities across the country will be jeopardized.

I could go on and on listing the ways our servicemembers and our DOD civilian workforce and the private sector contractors will be affected by our failure to act. There is simply no excuse for this Senate not to have acted last year on a Defense appropriations bill. Surely, we should turn our attention to focusing on the needs of our military immediately, and we should heed the warning of Secretary Gates, who said:

That is how you hollow out a military--when your best

people, your veterans of multiple combat deployments, become

frustrated and demoralized and, as a result, begin leaving

military service.

Let's do what is most important and let's do it now. Let's pass the Defense appropriations bill.

I wish to thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, for yielding me time.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the Nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire on March 18. We cannot allow this to occur. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Portman, and Landrieu to extend and improve the law.

More than 70,000 products are created through the use of chemicals, helping to supply the consumer, industrial, construction, and agricultural sectors of our economy. The United States is home to thousands of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals.

This industry is vital to our economy, with annual sales of $725 billion, exports of $171 billion, and more than 780,000 employees.

After September 11, 2001, we realized that chemical facilities were vulnerable to terrorist attack. Given the hazardous chemicals present at many locations, terrorists could view them as attractive targets, yielding loss of life, significant injuries, and major destruction if successfully attacked.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings on chemical security. Following these hearings, Senators Lieberman, Carper, Levin, and I introduced bipartisan legislation authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities. That bill was incorporated into the homeland security appropriations act that was signed into law in 2006.

To implement this new authority, DHS established the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS. The program sets 18 risk-based performance standards that high-risk chemical facilities must meet. These security standards cover a range of threats, such as perimeter security, access control, theft, internal sabotage, and cyber security.

High-risk chemical facilities covered by the program must conduct mandatory vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans, and invest in protective measures.

The Department must approve these assessments and site security plans, using audits and inspections to ensure compliance with the performance standards. The Secretary has strong authority to shut down facilities that are non-compliant.

This risk-based approach has made the owners and operators of chemical plants partners with the Federal Government in implementing a successful, collaborative security program.

This landmark law has been in place slightly more than four years. Taxpayers have invested nearly $300 million in the program, and chemical plants have invested hundreds of millions more to comply with the law. As a direct result, security at our Nation's chemical facilities is much stronger today.

Now we must reauthorize the program. Simply put, the program works and should be extended.

Changing this successful law, as was proposed last year by the House of Representatives in partisan legislation, would discard what is working for an unproven and burdensome plan.

We must not undermine the substantial investments of time and resources already made in CFATS implementation by both DHS and the private sector. Worse would be requiring additional expenditures with no demonstrable increase to the overall security of our Nation.

In the 111th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives debated a provision that would alter the fundamental nature of CFATS. The provision would have required the Department to completely rework the program. It would have mandated the use of so-called ``inherently safer technology,'' or IST.

What is IST? It is an approach to process engineering. It is not, however, a security measure.

An IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere in the supply chain.

For example, many drinking water utilities have determined that chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of chlorine use compared to the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the northwest United States, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous

chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into a watershed area. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation, and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area.

Currently, DHS cannot dictate specific security measures, like IST. Nor should it. The Federal Government should set performance standards, but leave it up to the private sector to decide precisely how to achieve those standards.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could cost jobs at some facilities and affect the availability of many vital products.

Last year, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates testified that mandatory IST would restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, hobbling these industries. The increased cost of a mandatory IST program may force chemical companies to simply transfer their operations overseas, costing American workers thousands of jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities may choose to use IST. But that decision should be theirs--not Washington's. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility could choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

Last July, the Homeland Security Committee unanimously approved bipartisan legislation I authored with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to extend CFATS for three more years.

Additionally, the bill would have established voluntary exercise and training programs to improve collaboration with the private sector and state and local communities under the CFATS program; created a voluntary technical assistance program; and created a chemical facility security best practices clearinghouse and private sector advisory board at DHS to assist in the implementation of CFATS.

Today, along with Senators Pryor, Portman, and Landrieu, I am reintroducing this bill. The Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2011 is a straight-forward, common-sense reauthorization of the CFATS program.

I am conscious of the risks our Nation faces through an attack on a chemical facility. That is why I authored this law in the first place and battled considerable opposition to get it enacted. We should support the continuation of this successful security program without the addition of costly, unproven Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the Nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire on March 18. We cannot allow this to occur. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Portman, and Landrieu to extend and improve the law.

More than 70,000 products are created through the use of chemicals, helping to supply the consumer, industrial, construction, and agricultural sectors of our economy. The United States is home to thousands of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals.

This industry is vital to our economy, with annual sales of $725 billion, exports of $171 billion, and more than 780,000 employees.

After September 11, 2001, we realized that chemical facilities were vulnerable to terrorist attack. Given the hazardous chemicals present at many locations, terrorists could view them as attractive targets, yielding loss of life, significant injuries, and major destruction if successfully attacked.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings on chemical security. Following these hearings, Senators Lieberman, Carper, Levin, and I introduced bipartisan legislation authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities. That bill was incorporated into the homeland security appropriations act that was signed into law in 2006.

To implement this new authority, DHS established the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS. The program sets 18 risk-based performance standards that high-risk chemical facilities must meet. These security standards cover a range of threats, such as perimeter security, access control, theft, internal sabotage, and cyber security.

High-risk chemical facilities covered by the program must conduct mandatory vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans, and invest in protective measures.

The Department must approve these assessments and site security plans, using audits and inspections to ensure compliance with the performance standards. The Secretary has strong authority to shut down facilities that are non-compliant.

This risk-based approach has made the owners and operators of chemical plants partners with the Federal Government in implementing a successful, collaborative security program.

This landmark law has been in place slightly more than four years. Taxpayers have invested nearly $300 million in the program, and chemical plants have invested hundreds of millions more to comply with the law. As a direct result, security at our Nation's chemical facilities is much stronger today.

Now we must reauthorize the program. Simply put, the program works and should be extended.

Changing this successful law, as was proposed last year by the House of Representatives in partisan legislation, would discard what is working for an unproven and burdensome plan.

We must not undermine the substantial investments of time and resources already made in CFATS implementation by both DHS and the private sector. Worse would be requiring additional expenditures with no demonstrable increase to the overall security of our Nation.

In the 111th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives debated a provision that would alter the fundamental nature of CFATS. The provision would have required the Department to completely rework the program. It would have mandated the use of so-called ``inherently safer technology,'' or IST.

What is IST? It is an approach to process engineering. It is not, however, a security measure.

An IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere in the supply chain.

For example, many drinking water utilities have determined that chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of chlorine use compared to the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the northwest United States, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous

chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into a watershed area. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation, and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area.

Currently, DHS cannot dictate specific security measures, like IST. Nor should it. The Federal Government should set performance standards, but leave it up to the private sector to decide precisely how to achieve those standards.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could cost jobs at some facilities and affect the availability of many vital products.

Last year, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates testified that mandatory IST would restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, hobbling these industries. The increased cost of a mandatory IST program may force chemical companies to simply transfer their operations overseas, costing American workers thousands of jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities may choose to use IST. But that decision should be theirs--not Washington's. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility could choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

Last July, the Homeland Security Committee unanimously approved bipartisan legislation I authored with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to extend CFATS for three more years.

Additionally, the bill would have established voluntary exercise and training programs to improve collaboration with the private sector and state and local communities under the CFATS program; created a voluntary technical assistance program; and created a chemical facility security best practices clearinghouse and private sector advisory board at DHS to assist in the implementation of CFATS.

Today, along with Senators Pryor, Portman, and Landrieu, I am reintroducing this bill. The Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2011 is a straight-forward, common-sense reauthorization of the CFATS program.

I am conscious of the risks our Nation faces through an attack on a chemical facility. That is why I authored this law in the first place and battled considerable opposition to get it enacted. We should support the continuation of this successful security program without the addition of costly, unproven Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a Federal program that creates jobs, improves communities, and ensures air travel throughout the United States. The Essential Air Service Program was created in the wake of the airline deregulation of the 1970s to ensure the continuation of commercial airline service for smaller communities.

Four airports in Maine participate in the EAS Program: Augusta, Rockland, Bar Harbor, and Presque Isle. The EAS Program supports these communities and creates direct and indirect jobs.

If the EAS Program were discontinued, travelers would lose choices and the economies of these communities would suffer. For residents of northern Maine, the only way to travel by air would be following a 3- to 4-hour car drive.

The Maine Department of Transportation calculates that 1,351 direct and indirect jobs rely on aviation activities at the four Maine EAS airports. In rural areas such as Rockland and Presque Isle, these jobs make a huge difference. Without EAS, these jobs would likely disappear.

Additionally, without EAS, our rural communities would be less able to attract new businesses and residents. A businessperson may be less likely to locate a new operation in northern Maine if scheduled airline service is more than 3 hours away. It would be simply unfair to pull the rug out from under these rural communities as they try to attract new jobs and businesses.

EAS is a small fraction of the total FAA spending, but it has a large impact on our Nation's rural communities and travelers. I strongly support the Essential Air Service Program and will oppose eliminating this program.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper in introducing the Cyber Security and Internet Freedom Act of 2011. This vital legislation would

fortify the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack and ensure that access to the Internet is protected and its availability preserved for every American.

The Internet is vital to almost every facet of Americans' daily lives--from the water we drink to the power we use to the ways we communicate. It is essential to the free flow of ideas and information. The Internet is a manifestation of the ideals that underlie the First Amendment of our Constitution and the core freedoms that all Americans hold dear. It is essential that the Internet and our access to it be protected to ensure both reliability of the critical services that rely upon it and the availability of the information that travels over it. While the United States must ensure the security of our nation and its critical infrastructure, it must do so in a manner that does not deprive Americans of the ability to lawfully read or express their views. Neither the President nor any other Federal official should have the authority to ``shut down'' the Internet.

In June 2010, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced legislation to strengthen the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack; build a public/private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities; and bolster the government's ability to set, monitor compliance with, and enforce standards and policies for securing Federal civilian systems and the sensitive information they contain. In late June, that bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Today we are introducing for the 112th Congress the bill unanimously approved by our committee, but with explicit provisions preventing the President from shutting down the Internet and providing an opportunity for judicial review of designations of our most sensitive systems and assets as ``covered critical infrastructure.''

President Mubarak's actions in January to shut down Internet communications in Egypt were, and are, totally inappropriate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected, and his ban was clearly designed to limit criticisms of his government. Our cyber security legislation is intended to protect the United States from external cyber attacks. Yet, some have suggested that the legislation the Committee reported during the last Congress would empower the President to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution.

But our outmoded current laws do give us reason to be concerned. Most important, under current law, in the event of a cyber attack, the President's authorities are broad and ambiguous--a recipe for encroachments on privacy and civil liberties.

For example, in the event of a war or threat of war, the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes the President to take over or shut down wire and radio communications providers. This law is a crude sledgehammer built for another time and technology. Our bill contains a number of protections to make sure that broad authority cannot be used to shut down the Internet.

First, section 2 of the bill states explicitly:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an

amendment made by this Act, or section 706 of the

Communications Act of 1934, neither the President, the

Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and

Communications, or any officer or employee of the United

States Government shall have the authority to shut down the

Internet.

Second, the emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure--vital components of the electric power grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted. This definition would not cover the entire Internet, the Internet backbone, or even entire companies.

In defining covered critical infrastructure, our bill directs the Secretary to consider the consequences of a disruption of a particular system or asset. To constitute a ``national or regional catastrophe,'' the disruption would need to cause a mass casualty event which includes an extraordinary number of fatalities; severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

When the Committee reported this bill last year, the report clarified what these four factors mean, specifically referencing the current DHS interpretation of ``national or severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or regional catastrophe.'' Under DHS's interpretation, a ``national or regional catastrophe'' includes a combination of the following factors: more than 2,500 prompt fatalities; greater than $25 billion in first-year economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence of greater than one month; or severe degradation of the nation's security capabilities.

As our Committee's report noted, we expect the Department to apply this standard in determining which particular systems or assets constitute covered critical infrastructure.

Third, our legislation restricts the President's ability to declare a national cyber emergency to those circumstances in which an ``actual or imminent'' cyber attack would disrupt covered critical infrastructure that would cause these catastrophic consequences.

Fourth, any measures ordered by the President must be ``the least disruptive means feasible.''

Fifth, the authority our bill would grant is time limited. The President could only declare a cyber emergency for 30-day period and only for up to 120 days. After that, Congress would be required to specifically authorize further measures. Any declaration would be subject to congressional oversight, as our bill requires the President to notify Congress regarding the specific threat to our nation's infrastructure, why existing protections are not sufficient, and what specific emergency measures are required to respond to the specific threat.

Sixth, the legislation expressly forbids the designation of any system or asset as covered critical infrastructure ``based solely on activities protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.''

Seventh, the bill provides for a robust administrative process for an owner or operator to challenge the designation of a system or asset as covered critical infrastructure and expressly permits challenges of a final agency determination in federal court.

Our bill contains protections to prevent the President from denying Americans access to the Internet--even as it provides clear and unambiguous direction to ensure that those most critical systems and assets that rely on the Internet are protected. And, even though experts question whether anyone can technically ``shut down'' the Internet in the United States, we included explicit language prohibiting the President from doing what President Mubarak did.

I would like to stress that the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive cyber security bill is more urgent than ever.

Cyber-based threats to U.S. information infrastructure are increasing, constantly evolving, and growing more dangerous.

In March 2010 the Senate's Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of Congress and the Executive Branch agencies are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month. The annual cost of cyber crime worldwide has climbed to more than $1 trillion.

Coordinated cyber attacks have crippled Estonia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and compromised critical infrastructure in countries around the world.

Devastating cyber attacks could disrupt, damage, or even destroy some of our nation's critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, dams, or communications networks. These cyber threats could cause catastrophic damage in the physical world.

Based on media reports, China and Russia already have penetrated the computer systems of America's electric power grid, leaving behind malicious

hidden software that could be activated later to disrupt the grid during a war or other national crisis.

In June 2010, cyber security experts discovered Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated viruses ever found. Stuxnet was programmed specifically to infiltrate certain industrial control systems, allowing the virus to potentially overwrite commands and to sabotage infected systems. It had the potential to change instructions, commands, or alarm thresholds, which, in turn, could damage, disable, or disrupt equipment supporting the most critical infrastructure.

The private sector is also under attack. In January 2010, Google announced that attacks originating in China had targeted its systems as well as the networks of more than 30 other companies. The attacks on Google sought to access the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists. For other companies, lucrative information such as critical corporate data and software source codes were targeted.

According to a report released last week, coordinated and covert attacks hit more than five major oil, energy, and petrochemical companies. The focus of the intrusions was oil and gas field production systems, as well as financial documents related to field exploration and bidding for new oil and gas leases. The companies also lost information related to their industrial control systems.

In the cyber domain, the advantage lies with our adversaries, for whom success could be achieved by exploiting a single vulnerability that could produce disruptive effects at network speed. Effectively preventing or containing major cyber attacks requires that response plans be in place and roles and authorities of Federal government agencies and entities be clearly delineated in advance.

For too long, our approach to cyber security has been disjointed and uncoordinated. This cannot continue. The United States requires a comprehensive cyber security strategy backed by effective implementation of innovative security measures. There must be strong coordination among law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, and the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

This bill would establish the essential point of coordination across the Executive branch. The Office of Cyberspace Policy in the Executive Office of the President would be run by a Senate-confirmed Director who would advise the President on all cyber security matters. The Director would lead and harmonize Federal efforts to secure cyberspace and would develop a strategy that incorporates all elements of cyber security policy. The Director would oversee all Federal activities related to the strategy to ensure efficiency and coordination. The Director would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

To be clear, the White House official would not be another unaccountable czar. The Cyber Director would be a Senate-confirmed position and thus would testify before Congress. The important responsibilities given to the Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy related to cyber security are similar to the responsibilities of the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Cyber Director would advise the President and coordinate efforts across the Executive branch to protect and improve our cyber security posture and communications networks. And, by working with a strong operational and tactical partner at the Department of Homeland Security, the Director would help improve the security of Federal and private sector networks.

This strong DHS partner would be the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, or Cyber Center. It would be located within the Department of Homeland Security to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. This Center also would be led by a Senate-confirmed Director.

The Cyber Center, anchored at DHS, will close the coordination gaps that currently exist in our disjointed federal cyber security efforts. For day-to-day operations, the Center would use the resources of DHS, and the Center Director would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. On interagency matters related to the security of Federal networks, the Director would regularly advise the President--a relationship similar to the Director of the NCTC on counterterrorism matters or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues. These dual relationships would give the Center Director sufficient rank and stature to interact effectively with the heads of other departments and agencies, and with the private sector.

Congress has dealt with complex challenges involving the need for interagency coordination in the past with a similar construct. We have established strong leaders with supporting organizational structures to coordinate and implement action across agencies, while recognizing and respecting disparate agency missions.

The establishment of the National Counterterrorism Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a prime example of a successful reorganization that fused the missions of multiple agencies. The Director of NCTC is responsible for the strategic planning of joint counterterrorism operations, and in this role reports to the President. When implementing the information analysis, integration, and sharing mission of the Center, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence. These dual roles provide access to the President on strategic, interagency matters, yet provide NCTC with the structural support and resources of the office of the DNI to complete the day-to- day work of the NCTC. The DHS Cyber Center would replicate this successful model for cyber security.

This bill would establish a public/private partnership to improve cyber security. Working collaboratively with the private sector, the Center would produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with the private sector, other Federal agencies, international partners, and state and local governments. By developing and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance to the private sector, the Center would improve cyber security across the nation. Best practices developed by the Center would be based on collaboration and information sharing with the private sector. Information shared with the Center by the private sector would be protected.

With respect to the owners and operators of our most critical systems and assets, the bill would mandate compliance with certain risk-based performance metrics to close security gaps. These metrics would apply to vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems, or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted.

This approach would be similar to the current model that DHS employs with the chemical industry. Rather than setting specific standards, DHS would employ a risk-based approach to evaluating cyber risk, and the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure would develop a plan for protecting against those risks and mitigating the consequences of an attack.

These owners and operators would be able to choose which security measures to implement to meet applicable risk-based performance metrics. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. This model would allow for continued innovation and dynamism that are fundamental to the success of the IT sector.

The bill would protect the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure from punitive damages when they comply with the new risk-based performance measures. Covered critical infrastructure also would be required to report certain significant breaches affecting vital system functions to the Center. Collaboration with the private sector would help develop mitigations for these cyber risks.

The Center also would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators of critical infrastructure regarding risks affecting the security of their sectors. The Center would work with sector-specific agencies and other Federal agencies with existing regulatory authority to avoid duplication of requirements, to use existing expertise, and to ensure government resources are employed in the most efficient and effective manner.

With regard to Federal networks, the Federal Information Security Management Act--known as FISMA--gives the Office of Management and Budget broad authority to oversee agency information security measures. In practice, however, FISMA is frequently criticized as a ``paperwork exercise'' that offers little real security and leads to a disjointed cyber security regime in which each Federal agency haphazardly implements its own security measures.

The bill we introduce today would transform FISMA from paper based to real-time responses. It would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

The legislation also would ensure that Federal civilian agencies consider cyber risks in IT procurements instead of relying on the ad hoc approach that dominates civilian government cyber efforts. The bill would charge the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the private sector and the heads of other affected departments and agencies, with developing a supply chain risk management strategy applicable to Federal procurements. This strategy would emphasize the security of information systems from development to acquisition and throughout their operational life cycle. The strategy would be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on standards developed by the private sector and would direct agencies to use commercial-off-the- shelf solutions to the maximum extent consistent with agency needs.

While the Cyber Center should not be responsible for micromanaging individual procurements or directing investments, we have seen far too often that security is not a primary concern when agencies procure their IT systems. Recommending security investments to OMB and providing strategic guidance on security enhancements early in the development and acquisition process will help ``bake in'' security. Cyber security can no longer be an afterthought in our government agencies.

These improvements in Federal acquisition policy should have beneficial ripple effects in the larger commercial market. As a large customer, the Federal Government can contract with companies to innovate and improve the security of their IT services and products. These innovations can establish new security baselines for services and products offered to the private sector and the general public without mandating specific market outcomes.

Finally, the legislation would direct the Office of Personnel Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained to ensure that the Federal Government and the private sector have the talent necessary to lead this national effort and protect its own networks. The bill would also provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the establishment of the Center.

We cannot afford to wait for a ``cyber 9/11'' before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations to our networks.

We must be ready. It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace. It is a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future.

I urge Congress to support this vitally important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper in introducing the Cyber Security and Internet Freedom Act of 2011. This vital legislation would

fortify the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack and ensure that access to the Internet is protected and its availability preserved for every American.

The Internet is vital to almost every facet of Americans' daily lives--from the water we drink to the power we use to the ways we communicate. It is essential to the free flow of ideas and information. The Internet is a manifestation of the ideals that underlie the First Amendment of our Constitution and the core freedoms that all Americans hold dear. It is essential that the Internet and our access to it be protected to ensure both reliability of the critical services that rely upon it and the availability of the information that travels over it. While the United States must ensure the security of our nation and its critical infrastructure, it must do so in a manner that does not deprive Americans of the ability to lawfully read or express their views. Neither the President nor any other Federal official should have the authority to ``shut down'' the Internet.

In June 2010, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced legislation to strengthen the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack; build a public/private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities; and bolster the government's ability to set, monitor compliance with, and enforce standards and policies for securing Federal civilian systems and the sensitive information they contain. In late June, that bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Today we are introducing for the 112th Congress the bill unanimously approved by our committee, but with explicit provisions preventing the President from shutting down the Internet and providing an opportunity for judicial review of designations of our most sensitive systems and assets as ``covered critical infrastructure.''

President Mubarak's actions in January to shut down Internet communications in Egypt were, and are, totally inappropriate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected, and his ban was clearly designed to limit criticisms of his government. Our cyber security legislation is intended to protect the United States from external cyber attacks. Yet, some have suggested that the legislation the Committee reported during the last Congress would empower the President to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution.

But our outmoded current laws do give us reason to be concerned. Most important, under current law, in the event of a cyber attack, the President's authorities are broad and ambiguous--a recipe for encroachments on privacy and civil liberties.

For example, in the event of a war or threat of war, the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes the President to take over or shut down wire and radio communications providers. This law is a crude sledgehammer built for another time and technology. Our bill contains a number of protections to make sure that broad authority cannot be used to shut down the Internet.

First, section 2 of the bill states explicitly:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an

amendment made by this Act, or section 706 of the

Communications Act of 1934, neither the President, the

Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and

Communications, or any officer or employee of the United

States Government shall have the authority to shut down the

Internet.

Second, the emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure--vital components of the electric power grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted. This definition would not cover the entire Internet, the Internet backbone, or even entire companies.

In defining covered critical infrastructure, our bill directs the Secretary to consider the consequences of a disruption of a particular system or asset. To constitute a ``national or regional catastrophe,'' the disruption would need to cause a mass casualty event which includes an extraordinary number of fatalities; severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

When the Committee reported this bill last year, the report clarified what these four factors mean, specifically referencing the current DHS interpretation of ``national or severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or regional catastrophe.'' Under DHS's interpretation, a ``national or regional catastrophe'' includes a combination of the following factors: more than 2,500 prompt fatalities; greater than $25 billion in first-year economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence of greater than one month; or severe degradation of the nation's security capabilities.

As our Committee's report noted, we expect the Department to apply this standard in determining which particular systems or assets constitute covered critical infrastructure.

Third, our legislation restricts the President's ability to declare a national cyber emergency to those circumstances in which an ``actual or imminent'' cyber attack would disrupt covered critical infrastructure that would cause these catastrophic consequences.

Fourth, any measures ordered by the President must be ``the least disruptive means feasible.''

Fifth, the authority our bill would grant is time limited. The President could only declare a cyber emergency for 30-day period and only for up to 120 days. After that, Congress would be required to specifically authorize further measures. Any declaration would be subject to congressional oversight, as our bill requires the President to notify Congress regarding the specific threat to our nation's infrastructure, why existing protections are not sufficient, and what specific emergency measures are required to respond to the specific threat.

Sixth, the legislation expressly forbids the designation of any system or asset as covered critical infrastructure ``based solely on activities protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.''

Seventh, the bill provides for a robust administrative process for an owner or operator to challenge the designation of a system or asset as covered critical infrastructure and expressly permits challenges of a final agency determination in federal court.

Our bill contains protections to prevent the President from denying Americans access to the Internet--even as it provides clear and unambiguous direction to ensure that those most critical systems and assets that rely on the Internet are protected. And, even though experts question whether anyone can technically ``shut down'' the Internet in the United States, we included explicit language prohibiting the President from doing what President Mubarak did.

I would like to stress that the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive cyber security bill is more urgent than ever.

Cyber-based threats to U.S. information infrastructure are increasing, constantly evolving, and growing more dangerous.

In March 2010 the Senate's Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of Congress and the Executive Branch agencies are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month. The annual cost of cyber crime worldwide has climbed to more than $1 trillion.

Coordinated cyber attacks have crippled Estonia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and compromised critical infrastructure in countries around the world.

Devastating cyber attacks could disrupt, damage, or even destroy some of our nation's critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, dams, or communications networks. These cyber threats could cause catastrophic damage in the physical world.

Based on media reports, China and Russia already have penetrated the computer systems of America's electric power grid, leaving behind malicious

hidden software that could be activated later to disrupt the grid during a war or other national crisis.

In June 2010, cyber security experts discovered Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated viruses ever found. Stuxnet was programmed specifically to infiltrate certain industrial control systems, allowing the virus to potentially overwrite commands and to sabotage infected systems. It had the potential to change instructions, commands, or alarm thresholds, which, in turn, could damage, disable, or disrupt equipment supporting the most critical infrastructure.

The private sector is also under attack. In January 2010, Google announced that attacks originating in China had targeted its systems as well as the networks of more than 30 other companies. The attacks on Google sought to access the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists. For other companies, lucrative information such as critical corporate data and software source codes were targeted.

According to a report released last week, coordinated and covert attacks hit more than five major oil, energy, and petrochemical companies. The focus of the intrusions was oil and gas field production systems, as well as financial documents related to field exploration and bidding for new oil and gas leases. The companies also lost information related to their industrial control systems.

In the cyber domain, the advantage lies with our adversaries, for whom success could be achieved by exploiting a single vulnerability that could produce disruptive effects at network speed. Effectively preventing or containing major cyber attacks requires that response plans be in place and roles and authorities of Federal government agencies and entities be clearly delineated in advance.

For too long, our approach to cyber security has been disjointed and uncoordinated. This cannot continue. The United States requires a comprehensive cyber security strategy backed by effective implementation of innovative security measures. There must be strong coordination among law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, and the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

This bill would establish the essential point of coordination across the Executive branch. The Office of Cyberspace Policy in the Executive Office of the President would be run by a Senate-confirmed Director who would advise the President on all cyber security matters. The Director would lead and harmonize Federal efforts to secure cyberspace and would develop a strategy that incorporates all elements of cyber security policy. The Director would oversee all Federal activities related to the strategy to ensure efficiency and coordination. The Director would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

To be clear, the White House official would not be another unaccountable czar. The Cyber Director would be a Senate-confirmed position and thus would testify before Congress. The important responsibilities given to the Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy related to cyber security are similar to the responsibilities of the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Cyber Director would advise the President and coordinate efforts across the Executive branch to protect and improve our cyber security posture and communications networks. And, by working with a strong operational and tactical partner at the Department of Homeland Security, the Director would help improve the security of Federal and private sector networks.

This strong DHS partner would be the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, or Cyber Center. It would be located within the Department of Homeland Security to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. This Center also would be led by a Senate-confirmed Director.

The Cyber Center, anchored at DHS, will close the coordination gaps that currently exist in our disjointed federal cyber security efforts. For day-to-day operations, the Center would use the resources of DHS, and the Center Director would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. On interagency matters related to the security of Federal networks, the Director would regularly advise the President--a relationship similar to the Director of the NCTC on counterterrorism matters or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues. These dual relationships would give the Center Director sufficient rank and stature to interact effectively with the heads of other departments and agencies, and with the private sector.

Congress has dealt with complex challenges involving the need for interagency coordination in the past with a similar construct. We have established strong leaders with supporting organizational structures to coordinate and implement action across agencies, while recognizing and respecting disparate agency missions.

The establishment of the National Counterterrorism Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a prime example of a successful reorganization that fused the missions of multiple agencies. The Director of NCTC is responsible for the strategic planning of joint counterterrorism operations, and in this role reports to the President. When implementing the information analysis, integration, and sharing mission of the Center, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence. These dual roles provide access to the President on strategic, interagency matters, yet provide NCTC with the structural support and resources of the office of the DNI to complete the day-to- day work of the NCTC. The DHS Cyber Center would replicate this successful model for cyber security.

This bill would establish a public/private partnership to improve cyber security. Working collaboratively with the private sector, the Center would produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with the private sector, other Federal agencies, international partners, and state and local governments. By developing and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance to the private sector, the Center would improve cyber security across the nation. Best practices developed by the Center would be based on collaboration and information sharing with the private sector. Information shared with the Center by the private sector would be protected.

With respect to the owners and operators of our most critical systems and assets, the bill would mandate compliance with certain risk-based performance metrics to close security gaps. These metrics would apply to vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems, or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted.

This approach would be similar to the current model that DHS employs with the chemical industry. Rather than setting specific standards, DHS would employ a risk-based approach to evaluating cyber risk, and the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure would develop a plan for protecting against those risks and mitigating the consequences of an attack.

These owners and operators would be able to choose which security measures to implement to meet applicable risk-based performance metrics. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. This model would allow for continued innovation and dynamism that are fundamental to the success of the IT sector.

The bill would protect the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure from punitive damages when they comply with the new risk-based performance measures. Covered critical infrastructure also would be required to report certain significant breaches affecting vital system functions to the Center. Collaboration with the private sector would help develop mitigations for these cyber risks.

The Center also would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators of critical infrastructure regarding risks affecting the security of their sectors. The Center would work with sector-specific agencies and other Federal agencies with existing regulatory authority to avoid duplication of requirements, to use existing expertise, and to ensure government resources are employed in the most efficient and effective manner.

With regard to Federal networks, the Federal Information Security Management Act--known as FISMA--gives the Office of Management and Budget broad authority to oversee agency information security measures. In practice, however, FISMA is frequently criticized as a ``paperwork exercise'' that offers little real security and leads to a disjointed cyber security regime in which each Federal agency haphazardly implements its own security measures.

The bill we introduce today would transform FISMA from paper based to real-time responses. It would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

The legislation also would ensure that Federal civilian agencies consider cyber risks in IT procurements instead of relying on the ad hoc approach that dominates civilian government cyber efforts. The bill would charge the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the private sector and the heads of other affected departments and agencies, with developing a supply chain risk management strategy applicable to Federal procurements. This strategy would emphasize the security of information systems from development to acquisition and throughout their operational life cycle. The strategy would be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on standards developed by the private sector and would direct agencies to use commercial-off-the- shelf solutions to the maximum extent consistent with agency needs.

While the Cyber Center should not be responsible for micromanaging individual procurements or directing investments, we have seen far too often that security is not a primary concern when agencies procure their IT systems. Recommending security investments to OMB and providing strategic guidance on security enhancements early in the development and acquisition process will help ``bake in'' security. Cyber security can no longer be an afterthought in our government agencies.

These improvements in Federal acquisition policy should have beneficial ripple effects in the larger commercial market. As a large customer, the Federal Government can contract with companies to innovate and improve the security of their IT services and products. These innovations can establish new security baselines for services and products offered to the private sector and the general public without mandating specific market outcomes.

Finally, the legislation would direct the Office of Personnel Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained to ensure that the Federal Government and the private sector have the talent necessary to lead this national effort and protect its own networks. The bill would also provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the establishment of the Center.

We cannot afford to wait for a ``cyber 9/11'' before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations to our networks.

We must be ready. It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace. It is a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future.

I urge Congress to support this vitally important legislation.

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

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

Thank you, Madam President.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 361 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, Americans are resilient. Throughout our Nation's history, we have stood up to every challenge and we have stood together. At this moment in history, we face the challenge of recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Through no fault of their own, too many Americans have lost their jobs and continue to struggle to find work in this tough economy. Putting Americans back to work is the key to economic recovery and must be the No. 1 goal for this Congress.

Today, I offer my own seven-point plan to help us reach that goal. This jobs plan recognizes that small businesses are America's job creators and, thus, our efforts must be targeted toward helping small businesses start up, grow, and prosper.

In Maine alone, we have 141,000 small businesses. During the past decade, America's small firms have created about 70 percent of all new jobs. But far too often Congress directs Federal policies and attention toward those businesses deemed too big to fail. Instead, we must redirect our efforts toward those small businesses that are too entrepreneurial to ignore.

The plan I am introducing today is based on extensive conversations I have had with small business owners and workers throughout the State of Maine. It also represents a great deal of hard work by my staff.

While each State has its own particular opportunities and challenges, the fundamentals of a jobs-oriented economic recovery are similar everywhere. As I illustrate my seven-point plan with examples from my home State of Maine, I believe the Presiding Officer and my colleagues will recognize similarities in their own home States.

First, my plan to build a 21st century economy begins with building a 21st century workforce. America's greatest asset is its people. Ensuring that American workers get the education and job training they need to compete in an increasingly global economy must be a top priority.

My plan amends the Workforce Investment Act to place special emphasis on job training programs that assist our manufacturing industry. I am tired of seeing so many manufacturing jobs leave my State and our Nation to go overseas. It is important we have a strategy to work with manufacturers, to work with local community colleges and universities to develop the manufacturing base curriculum, job training

programs, and research opportunities to ensure this generation and the next have the education and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Some of those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. But others are coming online, and America must lead and Congress must support targeted funding to help provide the resources for this education and training.

In addition, we must provide workforce development assistance to those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the closure or realignment of military installations.

For example, the State of Maine is expected to lose more than 6,500 military and civilian jobs following the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005. We are losing the Brunswick Naval Air Station in our State. There are many other States, including Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey that are facing similar losses. In Virginia, nearly 40,000 jobs will be lost. In such cases where decisions made at the Federal level directly affect local employment, we have a special obligation to make sure displaced workers have the training and education they need to find new employment in their communities. After all, these communities have structured their economies to support military operations for decades, in many cases. Now that that lynchpin of the local economy is being pulled out, surely we have an obligation to help with the adjustment. My plan would redirect Economic Development Administration funds--EDA resources--to those communities most harmed by these decisions.

Targeted Federal funds can also be a catalyst for new economic opportunities. For example, I worked to secure one-time funding for a radiologic technician training program at a Maine community college. This program had broad support from local hospitals and from the college, but they simply couldn't afford the expensive equipment to get the program under way. With that one-time Federal investment, the program is now completely self-sustaining, and it produces between 18 and 20 graduates a year. Job placement has been 100 percent, with graduates earning starting salaries of about $40,000 a year. I am sure similar targeted job training success stories can be found in every State, and we ought to build on them.

We must also fix what has not worked as well as it should. Government agencies must provide more efficient and productive services to the American people. The Department of Labor, for example, should reduce paperwork and redtape associated with Federal job training programs. The Department should identify ways it could cut costs by working more closely with other government entities, such as the Department of Education, and with the private sector. The best programs I have seen at community colleges, for example, combine some job training funds with commitments from private employers to hire the graduates and to help shape those job training programs so we are training people for the jobs that exist or that are going to exist.

The second part of my plan would encourage innovation in Maine's natural resource-based economy. Nowhere is there greater potential than in energy. I want the United States to lead the world in developing renewable energy technologies, and that is going to require significant private and public investments to develop this technology and to make its deployment affordable. For example, deepwater offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our Nation's electricity needs, and it presents an exciting opportunity to create thousands of much needed, good-paying, and sustainable green jobs. Estimates show that the development of just 5 gigawatts of offshore wind off the coast of Maine--and that is just a fraction of the overall potential--could power more than 1 million homes, attract $20 billion of investment, and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 30 years.

Deepwater offshore wind is the key transformative technology that America needs in order to compete globally. Europe, China, Japan--our technology competitors--continue to make far larger investments in offshore wind R&D than we do. I am proud of the work of the University of Maine and the DeepCwind Consortium private sector investment to deploy loading wind turbines, which would be the first of its kind in the world, placing the United States in a position to lead in deepwater offshore wind technology.

Federal investments in programs to spur the advancement of deepwater offshore wind is an investment in America's future. Federal and State seed funding is expected to yield up to $4 billion in private sector investment over the next 10 years in Maine alone. With these investments, Maine is well positioned to be a global leader in this promising source of alternative energy. We must not lose these jobs to China, as has increasingly occurred with solar technology. Let's not let it happen with deepwater offshore wind technology.

We must also do more to promote agricultural exports. I know this is an issue of great interest to the Presiding Officer. In Maine, blueberries, potatoes, and lobster help create and sustain jobs in our State. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 12,000 jobs. Therefore, increasing exports of our agricultural products could play an important role in reviving our economy. Boosting support for the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Services will help promote our homegrown natural products abroad. This effort to increase agricultural exports could be paid for by strengthening our effort to curtail wasteful agricultural subsidies, such as payments to very wealthy corporate farmers who, frankly, do not need Federal assistance.

The corn-based ethanol tax break is another example of an extraordinarily expensive subsidy, costing taxpayers some $6 billion annually, and which has produced a host of problems from higher grain prices to impaired engine performance. We must reevaluate all programs that have not performed as promised and then reallocate their funding to job-creation initiatives and to deficit reduction.

Third, we simply must do more to encourage job creation and investment by small business. My plan includes a series of tax reform proposals targeted at these engines of job growth. The tax package agreed to by Congress and the President in December included a 2- percent cut in the employee portion of the payroll tax, but no cut was provided for the employer portion of the payroll tax.

With unemployment stuck above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months, we must do more to encourage businesses to hire. When I talk to small businesses, they tell me this is something we can do that would directly reduce the cost of hiring and encourage them to bring on more workers. My proposal includes a 2-percent reduction of the employer portion of the payroll tax on the first $50,000 of payroll for 1 year. This reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax is estimated to lead to the creation of 1.4 million jobs. This will work.

As with the employee-side payroll tax relief we passed in December, my proposal would require the Treasury to reimburse the Social Security trust fund using general revenues. Again, the cost of this payroll tax relief can be offset by eliminating the ethanol and other wasteful subsidies and by implementing budget cuts for discretionary spending.

There are other provisions in my bill that are targeted toward small businesses. For example, section 179 is a provision of the Tax Code that small businesses have found to be very helpful. It allows them to immediately expense equipment purchases rather than depreciate those purchases over many years.

I also propose making permanent the tax provision allowing restaurants to depreciate equipment over 15 years rather than 39\1/2\ years. Think about it. If a restaurant is only renovating once every 40 years, that is not going to be very feasible or attractive to its patrons.

The plan would also reduce the depreciation periods on commercial and residential buildings to 15 years to encourage investment and jump- start the economy. We did that back in 1981, and it worked.

My fourth point is one that some small business owners, I know, would put at the very top of the list of what we should do; that is, we need to reduce the redtape that ties them in knots. Let me provide an illustration.

We need to make sure Federal regulations do not impose an unnecessary

burden on job creation. The EPA has proposed a new regulation known as the boiler MACT. This rule, as originally proposed, could cost Maine businesses $640 million to comply with, despite the fact there are less costly approaches to deal with boiler emissions. It also has Federal agencies working at cross-purposes. Here we have the Department of Energy trying to encourage the conversion to biomass boilers at the same time the EPA is putting burdensome new regulations on them.

The result in Maine was the Department of Energy awarded one Maine high school a $300,000 grant to help buy a new wood pellet boiler to reduce the school's use of fossil fuels. But because EPA's proposed regulations would have greatly increased the cost of that boiler, the school board ended up turning down the grant. This is an example of where the right hand did not know what the left was doing.

My point is that Federal agencies should take into account the impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules. Thus, my plan contains several provisions to help reduce onerous regulations and cut redtape.

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.

Second, it 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.''

Third, it creates a mechanism to protect small businesses from onerous penalties the very first time they fail to comply with a paperwork requirement as long as no harm comes from that failure. If it is an honest, first-time mistake that causes no harm, why do we want to slap that small business with a heavy fine? That does not make sense.

The fifth point in my plan is aimed at our transportation policies. Getting raw materials to the factory or farm and finished products to market quickly, efficiently, and safely must be a priority. But the inconsistent and inequitable Federal policy on truck weight limits on interstate highways provides a telling example of where we are doing the opposite. The consequences are particularly acute in Maine.

I have spoken on this issue many times, so I am going to briefly describe it. Maine's businesses and trucking firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage because Federal law prohibits the heaviest trucks from using Federal interstates and instead diverts them to downtown streets and secondary roads. This means, for example, that nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off-limits. Yet these same trucks are permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, parts of New York State, and neighboring provinces in Canada. That makes Maine and Vermont an island of noncompetitiveness. It just does not make sense. The heaviest trucks belong on the roads built for them.

In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates. This project was an enormous success. It helped to preserve and create jobs because it allowed our businesses to be more efficient. It lowered fuel costs. It resulted in fewer carbon emissions, and it made our roads safer. Working with Senator Leahy, I am trying to make this permanent.

Point No. 6: We must invest in America's future. Research and development investment is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy competitive and to create good-paying jobs. The R&D tax credit provides an important incentive, but it needs to be updated so more companies can benefit from it. And there needs to be more certainty. Just having that tax credit from year to year discourages the kind of long-range planning and investment companies need. My plan includes a 5-year extension of the R&D tax credit. That is likely to happen, but by doing it year by year we create all these disincentives for investment.

Finally, the seventh point in my plan would help expand opportunities for small businesses and farmers to do business with the Federal Government. We need to help our small businesses, our farmers tap into markets they have not previously explored. As the former head of the New England Small Business Administration, I know how essential this drive for new markets is for job creation and for our economy.

One approach we are going to take is my Washington and State offices are going to redouble their efforts to help small businesses reach the Federal Government because the Federal Government is the largest consumer of goods and services in our country. I know that disturbs a lot of Americans right now, and it shows the size of the Federal Government. The fact is, the Federal Government purchased more than $535 billion worth of goods and services in this past fiscal year. Some 23 percent of that spending is directed to small businesses, and last year the value of Federal contracts to small businesses in my State alone was more than $250 million. If we can expand the opportunity for small businesses to do business with the Federal Government, that is a brandnew market for their products and services.

Last year, along with my colleague, Senator Snowe, and in conjunction with the Department of Defense Northeast Regional Council and the Maine Procurement Technical Assistance Center, I sponsored a small business matchmaker conference that brought together government agencies and prime contractors with our small business community to match up the purchasing needs with goods and services. It was a 3-day conference in south Portland. It was a tremendous success. We had about 385 small business owners and representatives from 135 government agencies and prime contractors looking to subcontract work meet face to face, sit down, exchange ideas.

Let me give an example of a successful connection that was made. A representative of a $2 billion aerospace company sat across the table from the owner of a 40-employee Maine machine shop with experience in very high quality, high-end custom work. That first meeting led to a significant business relationship that continues to grow.

I note that at our conference in south Portland, our total number of registrants was 597 people, and that just shows how eager our small businesses are to expand their customer base.

One great benefit of the matchmaker approach is instead of a small business working for weeks or even months to try to find the right person in the vast government bureaucracy or the right prime contractor, our entrepreneurs merely need to sit down across the table with them. It is direct, effective, and efficient.

But, obviously, it is not easy to do business with Uncle Sam. The rules and regulations are often strict, cumbersome, and unfamiliar. That is where our offices can help.

My plan also calls for Congress to work harder to open the Federal marketplace beyond the Washington beltway to entrepreneurs in every State. That will benefit our job creators and the American taxpayer because there will be more competition.

The struggling economy has challenged our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, but that spirit remains strong in Maine, in your State of New York, Madam President, and across the Nation. We will recover from this deep recession, but the recovery depends on the right policies in Washington to encourage the innovative and bold job creators of America. That means helping our small businesses start up, grow, prosper, sustain, and create good jobs.

My seven-point jobs plan offers a straightforward path forward for Congress to lead rather than impede job creation at this critical juncture in our history and in our recovery.

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

Mr. President, Americans are resilient. Throughout our Nation's history, we have stood up to every challenge and we have stood together. At this moment in history, we face the challenge of recovering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Through no fault of their own, too many Americans have lost their jobs and continue to struggle to find work in this tough economy. Putting Americans back to work is the key to economic recovery and must be the No. 1 goal for this Congress.

Today, I offer my own seven-point plan to help us reach that goal. This jobs plan recognizes that small businesses are America's job creators and, thus, our efforts must be targeted toward helping small businesses start up, grow, and prosper.

In Maine alone, we have 141,000 small businesses. During the past decade, America's small firms have created about 70 percent of all new jobs. But far too often Congress directs Federal policies and attention toward those businesses deemed too big to fail. Instead, we must redirect our efforts toward those small businesses that are too entrepreneurial to ignore.

The plan I am introducing today is based on extensive conversations I have had with small business owners and workers throughout the State of Maine. It also represents a great deal of hard work by my staff.

While each State has its own particular opportunities and challenges, the fundamentals of a jobs-oriented economic recovery are similar everywhere. As I illustrate my seven-point plan with examples from my home State of Maine, I believe the Presiding Officer and my colleagues will recognize similarities in their own home States.

First, my plan to build a 21st century economy begins with building a 21st century workforce. America's greatest asset is its people. Ensuring that American workers get the education and job training they need to compete in an increasingly global economy must be a top priority.

My plan amends the Workforce Investment Act to place special emphasis on job training programs that assist our manufacturing industry. I am tired of seeing so many manufacturing jobs leave my State and our Nation to go overseas. It is important we have a strategy to work with manufacturers, to work with local community colleges and universities to develop the manufacturing base curriculum, job training

programs, and research opportunities to ensure this generation and the next have the education and skills for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Some of those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. But others are coming online, and America must lead and Congress must support targeted funding to help provide the resources for this education and training.

In addition, we must provide workforce development assistance to those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the closure or realignment of military installations.

For example, the State of Maine is expected to lose more than 6,500 military and civilian jobs following the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005. We are losing the Brunswick Naval Air Station in our State. There are many other States, including Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey that are facing similar losses. In Virginia, nearly 40,000 jobs will be lost. In such cases where decisions made at the Federal level directly affect local employment, we have a special obligation to make sure displaced workers have the training and education they need to find new employment in their communities. After all, these communities have structured their economies to support military operations for decades, in many cases. Now that that lynchpin of the local economy is being pulled out, surely we have an obligation to help with the adjustment. My plan would redirect Economic Development Administration funds--EDA resources--to those communities most harmed by these decisions.

Targeted Federal funds can also be a catalyst for new economic opportunities. For example, I worked to secure one-time funding for a radiologic technician training program at a Maine community college. This program had broad support from local hospitals and from the college, but they simply couldn't afford the expensive equipment to get the program under way. With that one-time Federal investment, the program is now completely self-sustaining, and it produces between 18 and 20 graduates a year. Job placement has been 100 percent, with graduates earning starting salaries of about $40,000 a year. I am sure similar targeted job training success stories can be found in every State, and we ought to build on them.

We must also fix what has not worked as well as it should. Government agencies must provide more efficient and productive services to the American people. The Department of Labor, for example, should reduce paperwork and redtape associated with Federal job training programs. The Department should identify ways it could cut costs by working more closely with other government entities, such as the Department of Education, and with the private sector. The best programs I have seen at community colleges, for example, combine some job training funds with commitments from private employers to hire the graduates and to help shape those job training programs so we are training people for the jobs that exist or that are going to exist.

The second part of my plan would encourage innovation in Maine's natural resource-based economy. Nowhere is there greater potential than in energy. I want the United States to lead the world in developing renewable energy technologies, and that is going to require significant private and public investments to develop this technology and to make its deployment affordable. For example, deepwater offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our Nation's electricity needs, and it presents an exciting opportunity to create thousands of much needed, good-paying, and sustainable green jobs. Estimates show that the development of just 5 gigawatts of offshore wind off the coast of Maine--and that is just a fraction of the overall potential--could power more than 1 million homes, attract $20 billion of investment, and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 30 years.

Deepwater offshore wind is the key transformative technology that America needs in order to compete globally. Europe, China, Japan--our technology competitors--continue to make far larger investments in offshore wind R&D than we do. I am proud of the work of the University of Maine and the DeepCwind Consortium private sector investment to deploy loading wind turbines, which would be the first of its kind in the world, placing the United States in a position to lead in deepwater offshore wind technology.

Federal investments in programs to spur the advancement of deepwater offshore wind is an investment in America's future. Federal and State seed funding is expected to yield up to $4 billion in private sector investment over the next 10 years in Maine alone. With these investments, Maine is well positioned to be a global leader in this promising source of alternative energy. We must not lose these jobs to China, as has increasingly occurred with solar technology. Let's not let it happen with deepwater offshore wind technology.

We must also do more to promote agricultural exports. I know this is an issue of great interest to the Presiding Officer. In Maine, blueberries, potatoes, and lobster help create and sustain jobs in our State. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 12,000 jobs. Therefore, increasing exports of our agricultural products could play an important role in reviving our economy. Boosting support for the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Services will help promote our homegrown natural products abroad. This effort to increase agricultural exports could be paid for by strengthening our effort to curtail wasteful agricultural subsidies, such as payments to very wealthy corporate farmers who, frankly, do not need Federal assistance.

The corn-based ethanol tax break is another example of an extraordinarily expensive subsidy, costing taxpayers some $6 billion annually, and which has produced a host of problems from higher grain prices to impaired engine performance. We must reevaluate all programs that have not performed as promised and then reallocate their funding to job-creation initiatives and to deficit reduction.

Third, we simply must do more to encourage job creation and investment by small business. My plan includes a series of tax reform proposals targeted at these engines of job growth. The tax package agreed to by Congress and the President in December included a 2- percent cut in the employee portion of the payroll tax, but no cut was provided for the employer portion of the payroll tax.

With unemployment stuck above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months, we must do more to encourage businesses to hire. When I talk to small businesses, they tell me this is something we can do that would directly reduce the cost of hiring and encourage them to bring on more workers. My proposal includes a 2-percent reduction of the employer portion of the payroll tax on the first $50,000 of payroll for 1 year. This reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax is estimated to lead to the creation of 1.4 million jobs. This will work.

As with the employee-side payroll tax relief we passed in December, my proposal would require the Treasury to reimburse the Social Security trust fund using general revenues. Again, the cost of this payroll tax relief can be offset by eliminating the ethanol and other wasteful subsidies and by implementing budget cuts for discretionary spending.

There are other provisions in my bill that are targeted toward small businesses. For example, section 179 is a provision of the Tax Code that small businesses have found to be very helpful. It allows them to immediately expense equipment purchases rather than depreciate those purchases over many years.

I also propose making permanent the tax provision allowing restaurants to depreciate equipment over 15 years rather than 39\1/2\ years. Think about it. If a restaurant is only renovating once every 40 years, that is not going to be very feasible or attractive to its patrons.

The plan would also reduce the depreciation periods on commercial and residential buildings to 15 years to encourage investment and jump- start the economy. We did that back in 1981, and it worked.

My fourth point is one that some small business owners, I know, would put at the very top of the list of what we should do; that is, we need to reduce the redtape that ties them in knots. Let me provide an illustration.

We need to make sure Federal regulations do not impose an unnecessary

burden on job creation. The EPA has proposed a new regulation known as the boiler MACT. This rule, as originally proposed, could cost Maine businesses $640 million to comply with, despite the fact there are less costly approaches to deal with boiler emissions. It also has Federal agencies working at cross-purposes. Here we have the Department of Energy trying to encourage the conversion to biomass boilers at the same time the EPA is putting burdensome new regulations on them.

The result in Maine was the Department of Energy awarded one Maine high school a $300,000 grant to help buy a new wood pellet boiler to reduce the school's use of fossil fuels. But because EPA's proposed regulations would have greatly increased the cost of that boiler, the school board ended up turning down the grant. This is an example of where the right hand did not know what the left was doing.

My point is that Federal agencies should take into account the impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules. Thus, my plan contains several provisions to help reduce onerous regulations and cut redtape.

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.

Second, it 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.''

Third, it creates a mechanism to protect small businesses from onerous penalties the very first time they fail to comply with a paperwork requirement as long as no harm comes from that failure. If it is an honest, first-time mistake that causes no harm, why do we want to slap that small business with a heavy fine? That does not make sense.

The fifth point in my plan is aimed at our transportation policies. Getting raw materials to the factory or farm and finished products to market quickly, efficiently, and safely must be a priority. But the inconsistent and inequitable Federal policy on truck weight limits on interstate highways provides a telling example of where we are doing the opposite. The consequences are particularly acute in Maine.

I have spoken on this issue many times, so I am going to briefly describe it. Maine's businesses and trucking firms are currently at a competitive disadvantage because Federal law prohibits the heaviest trucks from using Federal interstates and instead diverts them to downtown streets and secondary roads. This means, for example, that nearly 260 miles of nonturnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off-limits. Yet these same trucks are permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, parts of New York State, and neighboring provinces in Canada. That makes Maine and Vermont an island of noncompetitiveness. It just does not make sense. The heaviest trucks belong on the roads built for them.

In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates. This project was an enormous success. It helped to preserve and create jobs because it allowed our businesses to be more efficient. It lowered fuel costs. It resulted in fewer carbon emissions, and it made our roads safer. Working with Senator Leahy, I am trying to make this permanent.

Point No. 6: We must invest in America's future. Research and development investment is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy competitive and to create good-paying jobs. The R&D tax credit provides an important incentive, but it needs to be updated so more companies can benefit from it. And there needs to be more certainty. Just having that tax credit from year to year discourages the kind of long-range planning and investment companies need. My plan includes a 5-year extension of the R&D tax credit. That is likely to happen, but by doing it year by year we create all these disincentives for investment.

Finally, the seventh point in my plan would help expand opportunities for small businesses and farmers to do business with the Federal Government. We need to help our small businesses, our farmers tap into markets they have not previously explored. As the former head of the New England Small Business Administration, I know how essential this drive for new markets is for job creation and for our economy.

One approach we are going to take is my Washington and State offices are going to redouble their efforts to help small businesses reach the Federal Government because the Federal Government is the largest consumer of goods and services in our country. I know that disturbs a lot of Americans right now, and it shows the size of the Federal Government. The fact is, the Federal Government purchased more than $535 billion worth of goods and services in this past fiscal year. Some 23 percent of that spending is directed to small businesses, and last year the value of Federal contracts to small businesses in my State alone was more than $250 million. If we can expand the opportunity for small businesses to do business with the Federal Government, that is a brandnew market for their products and services.

Last year, along with my colleague, Senator Snowe, and in conjunction with the Department of Defense Northeast Regional Council and the Maine Procurement Technical Assistance Center, I sponsored a small business matchmaker conference that brought together government agencies and prime contractors with our small business community to match up the purchasing needs with goods and services. It was a 3-day conference in south Portland. It was a tremendous success. We had about 385 small business owners and representatives from 135 government agencies and prime contractors looking to subcontract work meet face to face, sit down, exchange ideas.

Let me give an example of a successful connection that was made. A representative of a $2 billion aerospace company sat across the table from the owner of a 40-employee Maine machine shop with experience in very high quality, high-end custom work. That first meeting led to a significant business relationship that continues to grow.

I note that at our conference in south Portland, our total number of registrants was 597 people, and that just shows how eager our small businesses are to expand their customer base.

One great benefit of the matchmaker approach is instead of a small business working for weeks or even months to try to find the right person in the vast government bureaucracy or the right prime contractor, our entrepreneurs merely need to sit down across the table with them. It is direct, effective, and efficient.

But, obviously, it is not easy to do business with Uncle Sam. The rules and regulations are often strict, cumbersome, and unfamiliar. That is where our offices can help.

My plan also calls for Congress to work harder to open the Federal marketplace beyond the Washington beltway to entrepreneurs in every State. That will benefit our job creators and the American taxpayer because there will be more competition.

The struggling economy has challenged our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit, but that spirit remains strong in Maine, in your State of New York, Madam President, and across the Nation. We will recover from this deep recession, but the recovery depends on the right policies in Washington to encourage the innovative and bold job creators of America. That means helping our small businesses start up, grow, prosper, sustain, and create good jobs.

My seven-point jobs plan offers a straightforward path forward for Congress to lead rather than impede job creation at this critical juncture in our history and in our recovery.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment of Senator Wicker to provide additional workforce protections for Transportation Security Officers while at the same time ensuring the management flexibility that is vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA, and thus the security of the American people. Instead of dramatically changing the TSA personnel system in a way that could interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its essential mission, as the administration plans, we should, instead, make some targeted but important reforms in the system to ensure that TSA employees are treated fairly.

First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protection Act, which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government.

Second, we should give TSA workers the right to an independent appeal of adverse personnel actions--for example, a demotion would qualify. What we are proposing is that a TSA employee so affected would be able to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Third, we should make clear that TSA members can, in fact, join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. So our amendment specifically provides that we are not depriving employees of that choice--which they have right now.

I have just received a letter from former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley, who was extremely well regarded and served as the head of TSA for 4 years. He expresses support for the amendment that Senator Wicker and I are offering. Mr. Hawley knows firsthand how important it is for TSA to have

the flexibility in order to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, and to impending crises. I note this is not theoretical. TSA has used this authority in the past.

In 2006, for example, TSA had to respond virtually overnight to the liquids plot to blow up airplanes that originated in Great Britain. Overnight, TSA had to retrain its workers and redeploy them to different airports. This is not a theoretical concern.

Another example was the blizzard that occurred in Denver, where TSA screeners had to be flown in from another city to cover the shifts of TSA employees at that airport. This kind of management flexibility was also used in the wake of the gulf coast hurricanes when there were massive evacuations.

In his letter, Mr. Hawley states that although TSA's recent determination states that security policies and procedures will not be issues subject to collective bargaining, the dividing line between security and nonsecurity practices ``is not a bright one.''

He makes the same point that former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff made the last time we debated this issue, and that is defining what is and what is not subject to collective bargaining undoubtedly will be subject to subsequent litigation.

He further notes:

The resolution of these issues could rest with an

arbitrator with no direct knowledge of security issues,

intelligence, and transportation security. [This could] place

the performance of TSA's security mission in the hands of

someone who neither has the expertise to make these

decisions, nor [a person who] is accountable for them.

I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.

I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a balanced approach that will give these employees more rights than they currently have without interfering with the essential mission of this law enforcement agency.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation would help the U.S. Postal Service regain its financial footing as it adapts to the era of increasingly digital communications.

The storied history of the Postal Service pre-dates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of ``a line of posts . . . from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia.'' The Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

Today, the Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs approximately 7.5 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, and financial services.

Postal Service employees deliver mail six days a week to hundreds of millions of households and businesses. From our largest cities to our smallest towns, from the Hawaiian Islands to Alaskan reservations, the Postal Service is a vital part of our national communications network and an icon of American culture.

But the financial state of the Postal Service is abysmal. The numbers are grim: the Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 and recently announced that it posted a net loss of $329 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 alone. The ``Great Recession,'' high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have undermined the Postal Service's ability to remain solvent.

Faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service must reinvent itself. It must increase revenues by increasing its value to its customers and by becoming more cost effective.

Unfortunately, many of the solutions the Postal Service has proposed would only aggravate its problems. Filing for enormous rate increases, pursuing significant service reductions--including elimination of Saturday mail delivery--and seeking relief from funding its huge liabilities are not viable long-term solutions to the challenges confronting the Postal Service. These changes will drive more customers to less expensive, digital alternatives. That downturn in customers will further erode mail volume and lead to a death spiral for the Postal Service.

The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a more customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored with Senator Carper, provided the foundation for these long- term changes, but the Postal Service has been slow to take advantage of some of the flexibilities afforded by that law. And, to be fair, the Postal Service has encountered problems not of its making, such as a severe recession.

The legislation that I introduce today would help the Postal Service achieve financial stability and light the way to future cost savings without undermining customer service.

The legislation would help remedy an enormous overpayment by the Postal Service into retirement funds used by both Federal and postal employees alike. Based on an independent actuarial analysis, the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid in excess of $50 billion into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and nearly $3 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. Another independent actuarial firm, commissioned by the Postal Service Inspector General, estimates that the overpayment into the CSRS pension fund is even greater, perhaps topping $75 billion. It is simply unfair--both to the Postal Service and its customers--not to refund these overpayments.

To address these inequities, the bill would allow the Postal Service access to the amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. It is essential that the Postal Service be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, such as its payments for future retiree health benefits and unfunded workers' compensation liabilities and for repaying its existing debt.

I have pressed the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to change its calculation method for Postal Service payments into the CSRS fund consistent with the 2006 Postal Reform law. OPM officials, however, have stubbornly refused to change this methodology or even to admit that the 2006 postal law permits them to do so. This has created a bureaucratic standoff that is unfair to the Postal Service. The OPM holds the life preserver--it could help rescue the Postal Service, but it simply refuses to throw it.

This legislation directs the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Service's obligations to the CSRS pension fund. Once OPM exercises this authority, my legislation would allow the Postal Service to use any resulting overpayments to cover its annual payments into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather than having to wait until after September 30, 2015, to access the CSRS overpayment.

Additionally, the legislation would allow the Postal Service to access the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, pension fund. The legislation would grant OPM this authority by adopting language, similar to Section 802(c) of the 2006 postal reform law, that allows OPM to recalculate the methodology governing Postal Service payments into the FERS pension fund to determine a more accurate contribution.

As with the CSRS overpayment, the Postal Service would be permitted to use the FERS overpayment to meet its

statutory obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund. These fund transfers would greatly improve the Postal Service's financial condition.

While I was pleased to see that the proposed budget the President released yesterday addresses the FERS overpayment, I was disappointed that it did not direct OPM to update its methodology to allow the Postal Service to access the significant CSRS overpayment. Moreover, I am concerned that the 30-year repayment period proposed by the President to refund any FERS overpayments is too long given the immediate financial needs of the Postal Service.

If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Service's obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, this legislation would allow the Postal Service to pay its workers' compensation liabilities, which top $1 billion annually. The Postal Service may also choose to use these funds to pay down its existing debt, which currently is $12 billion.

Second, the legislation would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and help prevent the kind of ethical violations recently uncovered by the Postal Service Inspector General.

Several months ago, I asked the Postal Service Inspector General to review the Postal Service's contracting policies. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste.

In its review of the Postal Service's contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Service's contract management did not protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open.

In fact, the Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. Of the no-bid contracts the IG reviewed, 35 percent lacked justification.

In one of the more egregious examples of waste and abuse, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former employees since 1991. At least 17 of those contracts were no-bid contracts given to career executives within one year of their separation from the Postal Service.

Some of these former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay to advise newly hired executives--an outrageous practice that the IG said raised serious ethical questions, hurt employee morale, and tarnished the Postal Service's public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just two months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor.

My legislation would help remedy many of the contracting issues the IG identified. Specifically, the bill would direct the Postmaster General to establish a Competition Advocate, responsible for reviewing and approving justifications for noncompetitive purchases and for tracking the level of competition.

Earlier this month, the Postmaster General recognized this as an essential position by naming a Competition Advocate. My bill would help clarify and codify the Competition Advocate's role to ensure that the position continues. Under my legislation, the Competition Advocate would also be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service contracting to the Postmaster General, the Board of Governors, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress.

To improve transparency and accountability, the bill also would require the Postal Service to publish justifications of noncompetitive contracts greater than $250,000 on its website. This transparency would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and promote competition.

To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with personal or business associates for private gain. In a June 2010 report, the IG identified several contracts that a former top executive awarded non-competitively to former business associates, totaling nearly $6 million. These contracts included at least two business associates he hired to manage his personal finances and outside business interests. These sorts of inappropriate, unethical contracts are unacceptable, and this legislation would help prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future. In addition, the bill would require the Postal Service's ethics official to review any ethics concerns that the contracting office identifies prior to awarding a contract.

Third, the legislation includes several provisions that would enhance efficiency and reduce costs. While the Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years, more must be done.

One such area is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Service's regional structure--which at the time of the report consisted of eight area offices and 74 district offices and cost approximately $1.5 billion to maintain in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. The Postal Service recently announced the closure of one area office, but it needs to conduct a more comprehensive review. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings.

The bill also would require the Postal Service to develop a plan to increase its presence in retail facilities, or co-locate, to better serve customers. Before co-location decisions could be made, however, the bill would direct the Postal Service to weigh the impact of any decision on small communities and rural areas. Moreover, the Postal Service would be required to solicit community input before making decisions about co-location and to ensure that co-location does not diminish the quality of service.

Fourth, the bill would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Service's financial condition when rendering decisions about collective bargaining agreements. This logical provision would allow critical financial information to be weighed as a factor in contract negotiations.

Fifth, the bill would require the Postal Service to provide notice of any significant proposed changes to mailing rules, solicit and respond to comments about the proposed changes, and analyze their potential financial impacts. Mandating that the Postal Service adhere to these notice-and-comment requirements would help ensure that the Postal Service has fully considered the effect that significant changes might have on customers and on the Postal Service's bottom-line.

Sixth, the bill would reduce workforce-related costs government-wide by converting retirement eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to retirement when they reach age 65, 5 years beyond the average retirement age for postal and Federal employees. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford.

From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.78 billion to employees on workers' compensation. These workers' compensation benefits serve as a crucial safety net for Federal and postal employees who are injured on the job so they can recuperate and return to work.

But, the Department of Labor indicates that postal and Federal employees across the government are receiving workers' compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. Because of its benefits structure, the workers' compensation program has morphed into a higher- paying alternative to Federal and postal retirement.

The Postal Service stands out as an unfortunate example of how Federal workers' comp is misused as a retirement system. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, postal employees accounted for nearly half of all workers' comp benefit payments--about $1.1 billion for 15,470 recipients. Of that number 2,051 were aged 70 or older; 927 were 80 or older; and 132 were 90 or older. Amazingly, three of these postal employees were 98 years old.

I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood that these recipients will ever return to work? No.

Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age?

This bill reforms the law by converting postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age

65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and American taxpayers cannot afford to spend.

The Postal Service is at a crossroads; it must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future. It must reject the path of severe service reductions and huge rate hikes, which will only alienate customers.

I have already received letters of support for my bill from various organizations, including the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, Greeting Card Association, Magazine Publishers Association, American Catalog Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association, PostCom, National Postal Policy Council, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, and the National League of Postmasters. I expect to receive more as postal stakeholders learn more about how my bill would help the Postal Service transform its operations.

The Postal Service must re-invent itself. It must embrace changes to revitalize its business model, enabling it to attract and keep customers. The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011 will help spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain its vital role in American society.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011. This legislation would help the U.S. Postal Service regain its financial footing as it adapts to the era of increasingly digital communications.

The storied history of the Postal Service pre-dates our Constitution. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General and directed the creation of ``a line of posts . . . from Falmouth in New England to Savannah in Georgia.'' The Constitution also gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

Today, the Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs approximately 7.5 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mail, printing, catalog companies, paper manufacturing, and financial services.

Postal Service employees deliver mail six days a week to hundreds of millions of households and businesses. From our largest cities to our smallest towns, from the Hawaiian Islands to Alaskan reservations, the Postal Service is a vital part of our national communications network and an icon of American culture.

But the financial state of the Postal Service is abysmal. The numbers are grim: the Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 and recently announced that it posted a net loss of $329 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 alone. The ``Great Recession,'' high operating costs, and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic alternatives have undermined the Postal Service's ability to remain solvent.

Faced with this much red ink, the Postal Service must reinvent itself. It must increase revenues by increasing its value to its customers and by becoming more cost effective.

Unfortunately, many of the solutions the Postal Service has proposed would only aggravate its problems. Filing for enormous rate increases, pursuing significant service reductions--including elimination of Saturday mail delivery--and seeking relief from funding its huge liabilities are not viable long-term solutions to the challenges confronting the Postal Service. These changes will drive more customers to less expensive, digital alternatives. That downturn in customers will further erode mail volume and lead to a death spiral for the Postal Service.

The Postal Service must chart a new course in this digital age. It must adopt a more customer-focused culture. It must see the changing communications landscape as an opportunity.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which I authored with Senator Carper, provided the foundation for these long- term changes, but the Postal Service has been slow to take advantage of some of the flexibilities afforded by that law. And, to be fair, the Postal Service has encountered problems not of its making, such as a severe recession.

The legislation that I introduce today would help the Postal Service achieve financial stability and light the way to future cost savings without undermining customer service.

The legislation would help remedy an enormous overpayment by the Postal Service into retirement funds used by both Federal and postal employees alike. Based on an independent actuarial analysis, the Postal Regulatory Commission estimates the Postal Service has overpaid in excess of $50 billion into the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, and nearly $3 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System pension fund. Another independent actuarial firm, commissioned by the Postal Service Inspector General, estimates that the overpayment into the CSRS pension fund is even greater, perhaps topping $75 billion. It is simply unfair--both to the Postal Service and its customers--not to refund these overpayments.

To address these inequities, the bill would allow the Postal Service access to the amounts that it has overpaid into these pension funds. It is essential that the Postal Service be permitted to use these funds to address other financial obligations, such as its payments for future retiree health benefits and unfunded workers' compensation liabilities and for repaying its existing debt.

I have pressed the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to change its calculation method for Postal Service payments into the CSRS fund consistent with the 2006 Postal Reform law. OPM officials, however, have stubbornly refused to change this methodology or even to admit that the 2006 postal law permits them to do so. This has created a bureaucratic standoff that is unfair to the Postal Service. The OPM holds the life preserver--it could help rescue the Postal Service, but it simply refuses to throw it.

This legislation directs the OPM to exercise its existing authority under the 2006 postal reform law and to revise its methodology for calculating the Postal Service's obligations to the CSRS pension fund. Once OPM exercises this authority, my legislation would allow the Postal Service to use any resulting overpayments to cover its annual payments into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather than having to wait until after September 30, 2015, to access the CSRS overpayment.

Additionally, the legislation would allow the Postal Service to access the nearly $3 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System, FERS, pension fund. The legislation would grant OPM this authority by adopting language, similar to Section 802(c) of the 2006 postal reform law, that allows OPM to recalculate the methodology governing Postal Service payments into the FERS pension fund to determine a more accurate contribution.

As with the CSRS overpayment, the Postal Service would be permitted to use the FERS overpayment to meet its

statutory obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund. These fund transfers would greatly improve the Postal Service's financial condition.

While I was pleased to see that the proposed budget the President released yesterday addresses the FERS overpayment, I was disappointed that it did not direct OPM to update its methodology to allow the Postal Service to access the significant CSRS overpayment. Moreover, I am concerned that the 30-year repayment period proposed by the President to refund any FERS overpayments is too long given the immediate financial needs of the Postal Service.

If the CSRS and FERS overpayment amounts are sufficient to fully fund the Postal Service's obligations to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund, this legislation would allow the Postal Service to pay its workers' compensation liabilities, which top $1 billion annually. The Postal Service may also choose to use these funds to pay down its existing debt, which currently is $12 billion.

Second, the legislation would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and help prevent the kind of ethical violations recently uncovered by the Postal Service Inspector General.

Several months ago, I asked the Postal Service Inspector General to review the Postal Service's contracting policies. The IG found stunning evidence of costly contract mismanagement, ethical lapses, and financial waste.

In its review of the Postal Service's contracting policies, the IG discovered no-bid contracts and examples of apparent cronyism. The Postal Service's contract management did not protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, it left the door wide open.

In fact, the Postal Service could not even identify how many contracts were awarded without competition. Of the no-bid contracts the IG reviewed, 35 percent lacked justification.

In one of the more egregious examples of waste and abuse, the IG discovered that more than 2,700 contracts had been awarded to former employees since 1991. At least 17 of those contracts were no-bid contracts given to career executives within one year of their separation from the Postal Service.

Some of these former executives were brought back at nearly twice their former pay to advise newly hired executives--an outrageous practice that the IG said raised serious ethical questions, hurt employee morale, and tarnished the Postal Service's public image. In one example, an executive received a $260,000 no-bid contract in July 2009, just two months after retiring. The purpose? To train his successor.

My legislation would help remedy many of the contracting issues the IG identified. Specifically, the bill would direct the Postmaster General to establish a Competition Advocate, responsible for reviewing and approving justifications for noncompetitive purchases and for tracking the level of competition.

Earlier this month, the Postmaster General recognized this as an essential position by naming a Competition Advocate. My bill would help clarify and codify the Competition Advocate's role to ensure that the position continues. Under my legislation, the Competition Advocate would also be required to submit an annual report on Postal Service contracting to the Postmaster General, the Board of Governors, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress.

To improve transparency and accountability, the bill also would require the Postal Service to publish justifications of noncompetitive contracts greater than $250,000 on its website. This transparency would improve the Postal Service's contracting practices and promote competition.

To resolve the ethical issues documented by the IG, the bill would limit procurement officials from contracting with personal or business associates for private gain. In a June 2010 report, the IG identified several contracts that a former top executive awarded non-competitively to former business associates, totaling nearly $6 million. These contracts included at least two business associates he hired to manage his personal finances and outside business interests. These sorts of inappropriate, unethical contracts are unacceptable, and this legislation would help prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future. In addition, the bill would require the Postal Service's ethics official to review any ethics concerns that the contracting office identifies prior to awarding a contract.

Third, the legislation includes several provisions that would enhance efficiency and reduce costs. While the Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs over the past several years, more must be done.

One such area is in the consolidation of area and district offices. The IG found that the Postal Service's regional structure--which at the time of the report consisted of eight area offices and 74 district offices and cost approximately $1.5 billion to maintain in fiscal year 2009--has significant room for consolidation. The Postal Service recently announced the closure of one area office, but it needs to conduct a more comprehensive review. My bill would require the Postal Service to create a strategic plan to guide consolidation efforts--a road map for future savings.

The bill also would require the Postal Service to develop a plan to increase its presence in retail facilities, or co-locate, to better serve customers. Before co-location decisions could be made, however, the bill would direct the Postal Service to weigh the impact of any decision on small communities and rural areas. Moreover, the Postal Service would be required to solicit community input before making decisions about co-location and to ensure that co-location does not diminish the quality of service.

Fourth, the bill would require the arbitrator to consider the Postal Service's financial condition when rendering decisions about collective bargaining agreements. This logical provision would allow critical financial information to be weighed as a factor in contract negotiations.

Fifth, the bill would require the Postal Service to provide notice of any significant proposed changes to mailing rules, solicit and respond to comments about the proposed changes, and analyze their potential financial impacts. Mandating that the Postal Service adhere to these notice-and-comment requirements would help ensure that the Postal Service has fully considered the effect that significant changes might have on customers and on the Postal Service's bottom-line.

Sixth, the bill would reduce workforce-related costs government-wide by converting retirement eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to retirement when they reach age 65, 5 years beyond the average retirement age for postal and Federal employees. This is a commonsense change that would significantly reduce expenses that both the Postal Service and the Federal Government cannot afford.

From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, the Department of Labor paid approximately $2.78 billion to employees on workers' compensation. These workers' compensation benefits serve as a crucial safety net for Federal and postal employees who are injured on the job so they can recuperate and return to work.

But, the Department of Labor indicates that postal and Federal employees across the government are receiving workers' compensation benefits into their 80s, 90s, and even 100s. Because of its benefits structure, the workers' compensation program has morphed into a higher- paying alternative to Federal and postal retirement.

The Postal Service stands out as an unfortunate example of how Federal workers' comp is misused as a retirement system. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, postal employees accounted for nearly half of all workers' comp benefit payments--about $1.1 billion for 15,470 recipients. Of that number 2,051 were aged 70 or older; 927 were 80 or older; and 132 were 90 or older. Amazingly, three of these postal employees were 98 years old.

I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood that these recipients will ever return to work? No.

Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age?

This bill reforms the law by converting postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age

65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and American taxpayers cannot afford to spend.

The Postal Service is at a crossroads; it must choose the correct path. It must take steps toward a bright future. It must reject the path of severe service reductions and huge rate hikes, which will only alienate customers.

I have already received letters of support for my bill from various organizations, including the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, Greeting Card Association, Magazine Publishers Association, American Catalog Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association, PostCom, National Postal Policy Council, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, and the National League of Postmasters. I expect to receive more as postal stakeholders learn more about how my bill would help the Postal Service transform its operations.

The Postal Service must re-invent itself. It must embrace changes to revitalize its business model, enabling it to attract and keep customers. The U.S. Postal Service Improvements Act of 2011 will help spark new life into this institution, helping it evolve and maintain its vital role in American society.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and friend from Mississippi for working with me over the past few days to modify the amendment he originally proposed. I very much appreciated his willingness to sit down and talk about the amendment, and I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Wicker's modified amendment, which provides additional workforce protections for transportation security officers while ensuring the management flexibility that is absolutely vital to the operational efficiency of the TSA and to the security of the American people. Our amendment would provide additional employment

protections to TSA employees while preserving the agency's ability to respond quickly and effectively to security and operational challenges.

Through our committee's work on homeland security, I have become convinced that the ability for TSA to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to impending crises, even to dramatic weather such as blizzards and hurricanes, is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--the ability to put assets and personnel where they are needed, when they are needed, with a minimum of bureaucracy.

The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with certain workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allowed the Administrator to shift resources and to implement new procedures whenever needed-- daily, even hourly, in some cases--in response to emergencies, canceled flights, changing circumstances, or threats to our security. This authority has enabled TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce.

I want to point out that this debate is not just theoretical. We are not talking about having some theoretical flexibility. We have already seen the benefits of this flexibility. We have seen exactly why it is necessary.

Let me give a couple of examples. In the aftermath of the thwarted airline liquids bombing plot that emanated from Great Britain, TSA was able to move quickly to change the nature of its employees' work and even the location of that work. With the liquids bombing plot, TSA, overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them differently, and was able to do so precisely because of the flexibility of the current law.

Another example is the December 2006 blizzard that hit the Denver area. When many local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, TSA was able to act quickly, flying in volunteer TSA employees from Las Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without that ability to deploy personnel where they were needed on a moment's notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential to maintain, and that is what the Wicker- Collins-Coburn amendment would do.

TSA also redeployed hundreds of screeners to Houston and New Orleans in response to hurricanes in 2008. These TSOs relieved local employees at those airports so that they could safely evacuate themselves and their families, and it helped to quickly resume screening operations after the storms had passed.

These were challenging times for TSA. Evacuations in these cities caused high volumes of airline passengers resulting in the TSOs in New Orleans screening more than 32,000 gulf coast residents within a 48- hour period.

TSA's announcement on Friday purports to preclude employees from bargaining over security policies and procedures. But if we look at precisely what it says, it does allow bargaining over the selection process for special assignments and on policies for transfers and shift trading--matters that could require very rapid resolution during an emergency. There will not be time for bargaining over those issues.

In addition, the very definition of what constitutes security policies and procedures could be the subject of dispute and litigation. That is exactly the point Secretary Chertoff made in a letter he sent to me in 2007 when the Senate was considering this very same issue. He wrote:

Although the administrator of TSA purportedly would not be

required to bargain over responses to emergencies or imminent

threats, it is inevitable that protracted litigation would

ensue over the meaning of these terms.

That is exactly what would happen if we allow to stand the decision of the Administrator of TSA. Instead of drastically changing the TSA personnel system in a way that would interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission, there is an alternative. We should make some targeted but critical reforms in the personnel system to ensure that TSA's employees are treated fairly.

My point is there is a middle ground that we can reach, and that is what the modified amendment does. First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protections Act, which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is simply no reason to deny TSA employees that protection. Indeed, I would argue it hurts us to deny that protection because if there is a whistleblower at this critical agency who does not feel fully protected and does not come forward, that could hurt our security. So our amendment would codify that coverage and make that protection clear.

Second, we should make clear that TSA members do have the right to join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. Some of them have chosen to be represented by a union now. Many have not chosen to be. But they should have that choice. That allows, for example, for them to get representation by a union if there is an adverse employment action. Our amendment specifically provides that we are not depriving employees of that choice.

Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent appeal of adverse personnel actions such as removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, reductions in pay or grade, or certain furloughs. The amendment would give TSOs the right to have those appeals heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board. That is an independent board, separate from the agency, separate from the Department of Homeland Security, that sits in judgment of appeals filed by most other Federal employees. So I see no reason TSA screeners should not have that same right. That is an important protection because if a screener believes he or she is being treated unfairly by a supervisor, there is an independent arbitrator to whom that employee can appeal.

Here is the bottom line. We can provide TSA employees with important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board and the statutory right to whistleblower protections without disrupting TSA's proven personnel system that has served the agency and this Nation well over the past decade. Previous Secretaries of Homeland Security and Administrators of TSA have described that personnel system in great detail to the Homeland Security Committee and to other entities, in the Senate in both classified briefings and open hearings, as necessary to accomplish the critical goals of TSA. Our amendment would preserve these flexible personnel systems while ensuring that TSA employees enjoy important legal protections available to other Federal employees.

I have been trying since 2007 to achieve a middle ground on this issue. Frankly, the previous administration was reluctant on some of the safeguards I have described. This administration has gone way overboard in the other direction, but a middle ground is exactly what this modified amendment strikes. It charts that middle ground, providing significant additional protections and rights to TSA employees without burdening a system that is working well now and that is essential to our security.

We simply have to allow the TSA Administrator to retain exactly the same kinds of flexibility to deploy personnel that he enjoys now and that have been used in the past. That is the important point. This debate is not theoretical. Those personnel flexibilities have proven absolutely essential to meet the threat of a terrorist attack and to deal with blizzards and hurricanes. I urge my colleagues to take a strong, close look at the modified amendment. I hope they will support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in early 1983, the Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky was in an 8-by-10 foot cell in a Siberian prison when jailers permitted him to read the latest issue of the official Communist Party newspaper.

The front page was filled with global condemnations of American President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an ``evil empire.'' Tapping on the walls and whispering through plumbing pipes, political prisoners spread the word. Rather than being demoralized by the criticisms, they were ecstatic. The leader of the free world had spoken the truth. There was hope.

By the end of the decade, hope became freedom, freedom for the hundreds of thousands imprisoned in the Soviet gulag and for the hundreds of millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Countless men and women of courage and determination, their names lost to history, stood up to tyranny and won a great victory with a leader whose name will forever be remembered by history. Lech Walesa, the founder of the valiant Solidarity movement, said this of President Reagan: ``We in Poland . . . owe him our liberty.''

In this centennial year, we are experiencing something rare. While many great figures of their time diminish over time, our regard for Ronald Reagan only grows. This cannot be explained by merely citing the qualities for which he was so well known: his confidence in America, his wit, and his optimism. It goes beyond his courage when attacked by an assassin's bullet or, at the end, a devastating disease or even his skills as the ``Great Communicator.'' Ronald Reagan looms ever larger because of his ideas and the enduring convictions that gave those ideas their power. ``History comes and goes,'' he said, ``but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but a blessing from our Creator.''

Ronald Reagan knew that liberty was not a blessing merely to enjoy but one that must always be defended. He expressed his faith in our ability to rise to its defense with these words: ``No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' His optimism sprang from his belief in the nobility of the human spirit.

The very ideas that are the foundation of this great Nation were the foundation of Ronald Reagan's character. He became President at a time when America had begun to question its place in the world and the values upon which this Nation was built. He tore down the wall of doubt and reminded us that our many blessings carried with them great obligations. Ronald Reagan was a great communicator because he had something great to communicate: the exceptionalism of the United States of America.

The birthday of one who has passed from this life is always a bittersweet occasion as we remember what we had and reflect on what we have lost. I would like to extend my best wishes to President Reagan's beloved First Lady, Nancy, and to the entire Reagan family.

Ronald Reagan was the right man for his time. He now belongs to the ages. He is missed, but his ideals will always be with us.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other states in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. It provides common sense reforms in the statute while retaining elements to help ensure transparency and accountability.

Since the enactment of NCLB 9 years ago, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in our State, and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education specialists, assessment experts, officials from the Maine Department of Education, and was chaired by a former Maine commissioner of education and a dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development. In other words, it was a broad-based commission that brought a great deal of expertise, experience, and perspective to the task force's work.

After a year of study, the task force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the act. The task force recommendations highlighted the need for greater flexibility for the Maine Department of Education and local schools in order to address various implementation concerns facing Maine. The legislation we are introducing today would make significant statutory changes designed to provide greater local control to Maine and greater flexibility to all States in their implementation efforts, not just Maine.

First, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to states in the ways that they measure student progress in meeting state education standards. Current NCLB law has proven to be too restrictive. Our legislation would permit states to use additional models to more accurately track the progress of all students over time. Specifically, it would allow States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line. Even if a school is unable to meet the trajectory targets set by the NCLB time-line, a school would not be identified as failing to make AYP provided it demonstrates improved student achievement according to these additional models. We would also require the Secretary to provide examples of these models to give practical assistance to States in the design of these systems. While the trajectory goals set in the statute are certainly valuable, our legislation seeks to clarify that States should be granted greater flexibility in the design of different accountability systems provided that they are consistent with the principle of improved student performance.

Second, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time. In addition, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 by requiring the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every three years, and allowing him to modify the time-line as necessary.

Furthermore, the Task Force report raised important concerns that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. Our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's Individual Education Plan, IEP, team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes. This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that educators and parents know he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special needs student will bring an important improvement to the act while still ensuring accountability.

Finally, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

While it has been some time since Maine's Task Force issued its report, its findings and recommendations remain valid. Our legislation is still necessary to provide greater flexibility and common sense modifications to address those key NCLB challenges identified in Maine. Our goals remain the same as those in NCLB: a good education for each and every child; well- qualified, committed teachers in every classroom; and increased transparency and accountability for every school. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.