Floor Statements

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.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 261 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the Federal Employees Compensation Reform Act of 2011. This bill would preserve the essential purpose of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, which is to ensure income for injured Federal and postal workers, while at the same time it would protect the program from fraud and abuse.

The Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is known as FECA, provides benefits that serve as a safety net for Federal employees and postal employees who are injured on the job, providing income until the healing process and rehabilitation allowed them to return to work. Obviously, we want to support those employees until they can return to work. That is both humane and just.

Over the years, however, this program has unintentionally morphed into an alternative retirement program that is far more financially lucrative for recipients than the standard Federal retirement system. Because of the way the program is structured, for some individuals, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system, tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse and fraud.

This program pays monthly benefits to about 49,000 recipients. Those are recipients who have suffered a work-related injury and have been approved for workers' comp benefits.

In the past fiscal year, this program cost $2.78 billion. Of that amount, nearly $1.1 billion went to Postal Service employees receiving these benefits.

This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented in their own workers' comp programs.

As it currently operates, FECA includes a perverse financial incentive that encourages older employees who otherwise would have retired to continue to receive workers' comp benefits.

Remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. That is the important phrase--``return to work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying alternative to the Federal retirement system.

Federal employees on FECA receive an average of 73 percent of their gross pay. Moreover, these workers' comp benefits are tax free--another substantial benefit.

By contrast, a Federal employee, with 30 years of service under the Civil Service Retirement System, would average slightly more than 56 percent of his or her gross pay as a retirement benefit, and these retirement benefits are taxed. It pays then to stay on workers' comp for as long as possible, since many recipients receive more money under that program than they would if they were to retire.

Let me again emphasize that these workers' comp payments are tax free--another big difference.

In fact, according to the numbers produced by the Department of Labor, nearly 30 percent of the current workers' comp recipients are age 66 and older, while the average retirement age for both Federal employees and postal workers is age 60.

With no mandatory Federal retirement age, FECA recipients are allowed to stay on workers' comp rolls for their entire lifetimes, even when there is no expectation that they will return to work because of their advanced age.

Some employees have continued to receive Federal workers' comp benefits into their hundreds. For the U.S. Postal Service alone, let's look at the statistics.

As we can see, there are more than 15,000 recipients in total. Of those, more than 2,000 recipients are age 70 or older; 927 recipients are age 80 or older; 132 recipients are age 90 or older; and astonishingly enough, 3 postal employees receiving workers' comp are age 98 or older.

Mr. President, it is obvious these workers are not going back to work. They clearly should be transitioned to the retirement system. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood at all these recipients are ever going to return to the workforce? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? Think how unfair that is to the worker who does retire, say, at age 65 and gets a lesser amount.

Right now, the way the system is structured it does not encourage people to go back to work or to transfer to retirement at an age when most of their fellow workers would have retired. To prevent this continued abuse, my bill would convert retirement-eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65.

Now, that is generous, Mr. President, because we know the average retirement age is actually 60. I would choose age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer cannot afford to spend. It is also a matter of fairness, Mr. President. But we must also examine other elements of the FECA program to determine whether there are some additional improvements that are necessary.

Unlike many State programs, the Federal workers' compensation program has no cap nor time limits on benefits. Moreover, the Federal Department of Labor acknowledges a 2- to 3-percent fraud rate in the program. I suspect it may be even higher. We need to reduce this rate of fraud by examining whether the medical certification requirements and other internal controls should be strengthened. Are we doing medical reviews to see if these individuals could go back to work?

For example, a former postal worker was sentenced just a week or so ago to 5 months in jail after pleading guilty to workers' compensation fraud. The employee claimed he was unable to walk from his parked car to the post

office. But at the same time he was receiving tax-free workers' compensation benefits, he was also operating a snow removal and lawn care business.

In addition, about 100 other claimants per year are prosecuted by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General because they received workers' compensation and their retirement pay. These are the so-called ``double-dippers.''

Mr. President, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, I have asked the Government Accountability Office, along with Senator Coburn and Senator McCaskill, to audit the FECA program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard Federal retirement age, and how the Federal program compares to State workers' compensation best practices. I expect these findings will lead to additional reform proposals as the bill proceeds through the Senate.

I also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the Federal Employees Retirement System, the FERS system, as opposed to the old Civil Service Retirement System are necessary to make sure that workers' compensation recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to FERS retirement benefits under this bill.

For example, this may require the Department of Labor to administer the Thrift Savings Plan contributions for recipients or to require Social Security contributions from workers' compensation recipients.

What is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. The program is costing too much, injured workers are not being monitored sufficiently and helped to return to productive work, recipients who should be in the retirement system are instead receiving tax-free benefits, and some agencies have high claim rates, suggesting that safety improvements are needed.

For the sake of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we must reform this program now. Not doing so is an affront to the thousands of Federal employees who enter the retirement system. It is a disservice to those Federal and postal employees who truly need workers' compensation benefits, and it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the Federal Employees Compensation Reform Act of 2011. This bill would preserve the essential purpose of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, which is to ensure income for injured Federal and postal workers, while at the same time it would protect the program from fraud and abuse.

The Federal Employees Compensation Act, which is known as FECA, provides benefits that serve as a safety net for Federal employees and postal employees who are injured on the job, providing income until the healing process and rehabilitation allowed them to return to work. Obviously, we want to support those employees until they can return to work. That is both humane and just.

Over the years, however, this program has unintentionally morphed into an alternative retirement program that is far more financially lucrative for recipients than the standard Federal retirement system. Because of the way the program is structured, for some individuals, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system, tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse and fraud.

This program pays monthly benefits to about 49,000 recipients. Those are recipients who have suffered a work-related injury and have been approved for workers' comp benefits.

In the past fiscal year, this program cost $2.78 billion. Of that amount, nearly $1.1 billion went to Postal Service employees receiving these benefits.

This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented in their own workers' comp programs.

As it currently operates, FECA includes a perverse financial incentive that encourages older employees who otherwise would have retired to continue to receive workers' comp benefits.

Remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. That is the important phrase--``return to work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying alternative to the Federal retirement system.

Federal employees on FECA receive an average of 73 percent of their gross pay. Moreover, these workers' comp benefits are tax free--another substantial benefit.

By contrast, a Federal employee, with 30 years of service under the Civil Service Retirement System, would average slightly more than 56 percent of his or her gross pay as a retirement benefit, and these retirement benefits are taxed. It pays then to stay on workers' comp for as long as possible, since many recipients receive more money under that program than they would if they were to retire.

Let me again emphasize that these workers' comp payments are tax free--another big difference.

In fact, according to the numbers produced by the Department of Labor, nearly 30 percent of the current workers' comp recipients are age 66 and older, while the average retirement age for both Federal employees and postal workers is age 60.

With no mandatory Federal retirement age, FECA recipients are allowed to stay on workers' comp rolls for their entire lifetimes, even when there is no expectation that they will return to work because of their advanced age.

Some employees have continued to receive Federal workers' comp benefits into their hundreds. For the U.S. Postal Service alone, let's look at the statistics.

As we can see, there are more than 15,000 recipients in total. Of those, more than 2,000 recipients are age 70 or older; 927 recipients are age 80 or older; 132 recipients are age 90 or older; and astonishingly enough, 3 postal employees receiving workers' comp are age 98 or older.

Mr. President, it is obvious these workers are not going back to work. They clearly should be transitioned to the retirement system. I must ask the obvious question: Is there any likelihood at all these recipients are ever going to return to the workforce? No. Then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? Think how unfair that is to the worker who does retire, say, at age 65 and gets a lesser amount.

Right now, the way the system is structured it does not encourage people to go back to work or to transfer to retirement at an age when most of their fellow workers would have retired. To prevent this continued abuse, my bill would convert retirement-eligible postal and Federal employees on workers' compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65.

Now, that is generous, Mr. President, because we know the average retirement age is actually 60. I would choose age 65. This is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the Postal Service, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer cannot afford to spend. It is also a matter of fairness, Mr. President. But we must also examine other elements of the FECA program to determine whether there are some additional improvements that are necessary.

Unlike many State programs, the Federal workers' compensation program has no cap nor time limits on benefits. Moreover, the Federal Department of Labor acknowledges a 2- to 3-percent fraud rate in the program. I suspect it may be even higher. We need to reduce this rate of fraud by examining whether the medical certification requirements and other internal controls should be strengthened. Are we doing medical reviews to see if these individuals could go back to work?

For example, a former postal worker was sentenced just a week or so ago to 5 months in jail after pleading guilty to workers' compensation fraud. The employee claimed he was unable to walk from his parked car to the post

office. But at the same time he was receiving tax-free workers' compensation benefits, he was also operating a snow removal and lawn care business.

In addition, about 100 other claimants per year are prosecuted by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General because they received workers' compensation and their retirement pay. These are the so-called ``double-dippers.''

Mr. President, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, I have asked the Government Accountability Office, along with Senator Coburn and Senator McCaskill, to audit the FECA program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard Federal retirement age, and how the Federal program compares to State workers' compensation best practices. I expect these findings will lead to additional reform proposals as the bill proceeds through the Senate.

I also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the Federal Employees Retirement System, the FERS system, as opposed to the old Civil Service Retirement System are necessary to make sure that workers' compensation recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to FERS retirement benefits under this bill.

For example, this may require the Department of Labor to administer the Thrift Savings Plan contributions for recipients or to require Social Security contributions from workers' compensation recipients.

What is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. The program is costing too much, injured workers are not being monitored sufficiently and helped to return to productive work, recipients who should be in the retirement system are instead receiving tax-free benefits, and some agencies have high claim rates, suggesting that safety improvements are needed.

For the sake of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we must reform this program now. Not doing so is an affront to the thousands of Federal employees who enter the retirement system. It is a disservice to those Federal and postal employees who truly need workers' compensation benefits, and it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Lieberman in introducing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011, also known as the SOAR Act. This important piece of legislation will reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has successfully provided additional educational options for some of our nation's most at-risk children.

Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is one of the highest in the nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools.

Approximately 6 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a unique ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress and the Bush administration then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education.

In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall, students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships--the equivalent of an additional three months of learning.

Studies have also shown that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which runs the program.

In May 2009, Chairman Lieberman and I held a compelling hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where we heard the personal success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real-world implications of discontinuing the program.

Ronald Holassie, then a junior at Archbishop Carroll, gave compelling testimony about the impact this program has had on his life. His mother was so concerned about the education he had been receiving that she was considering sending him to school in her home country of Trinidad, until she found out about the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Ronald said something very near the end of our hearing in response to a question from a member of the Committee that I also found enlightening. He said, ``DC schools didn't get bad over night, and they aren't going to get better overnight either.'' The program is critical to that improvement.

Based on what we have learned over the past few years, Chairman Lieberman and I drafted a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This effort is also being replicated in the House with a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner.

One of the reasons that I so strongly believe in the three-sector approach to funding for education in the District is that it reaffirms Congress' commitment to improving educational outcomes and opportunities, not just for the students attending private schools, but also for all students in the District--including those attending DC public and charter schools.

I know that each of us shares the common goal of ensuring that all students in the District are receiving the highest quality education, which is why it is incumbent upon us to act and to act now to fully reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Lieberman in introducing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act of 2011, also known as the SOAR Act. This important piece of legislation will reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has successfully provided additional educational options for some of our nation's most at-risk children.

Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is one of the highest in the nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools.

Approximately 6 years ago, leaders in the District of Columbia became frustrated with institutionalized failure within the public school system, and designed a unique ``three-sector'' strategy that provided new funding for public schools, public charter schools and new educational options for needy children. Working with the District, Congress and the Bush administration then implemented the DC School Choice Incentive Act in 2004, giving birth to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

The program is the first to provide federally funded scholarships to students, and has enabled low-income students from the District of Columbia public school system to attend the independent-private or parochial school of their choice. For many of these students, this was their first opportunity to access a high-quality education.

In March 2009, the Department of Education released its evaluation of the program's impact after three years, which showed that overall, students offered scholarships had higher reading achievement than those not offered scholarships--the equivalent of an additional three months of learning.

Studies have also shown that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children's experience in the program. Common reasons for this higher level of satisfaction included, appreciation for the ability to choose their child's school, the success their children are having in new school environments, and the support provided by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation, which runs the program.

In May 2009, Chairman Lieberman and I held a compelling hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where we heard the personal success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real-world implications of discontinuing the program.

Ronald Holassie, then a junior at Archbishop Carroll, gave compelling testimony about the impact this program has had on his life. His mother was so concerned about the education he had been receiving that she was considering sending him to school in her home country of Trinidad, until she found out about the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Ronald said something very near the end of our hearing in response to a question from a member of the Committee that I also found enlightening. He said, ``DC schools didn't get bad over night, and they aren't going to get better overnight either.'' The program is critical to that improvement.

Based on what we have learned over the past few years, Chairman Lieberman and I drafted a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. This effort is also being replicated in the House with a bill introduced by Speaker Boehner.

One of the reasons that I so strongly believe in the three-sector approach to funding for education in the District is that it reaffirms Congress' commitment to improving educational outcomes and opportunities, not just for the students attending private schools, but also for all students in the District--including those attending DC public and charter schools.

I know that each of us shares the common goal of ensuring that all students in the District are receiving the highest quality education, which is why it is incumbent upon us to act and to act now to fully reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. President, improving public safety, growing our economy, increasing energy independence, and protecting the environment have always been among my top priorities as a Senator. Today, the very first bill I am introducing in this new Congress will advance all of those goals by allowing the heaviest trucks to travel on our Federal interstate highways in Maine rather than being forced to use secondary roads and downtown streets.

I am delighted to have the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, as my Democratic cosponsor, and my good friend and colleague from Maine, Olympia Snowe, also as an original cosponsor. Vermont has the same problem as we do in Maine. Thus the bill I am introducing applies to our two States.

In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project that allowed trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates--I-95, 195, 295, and 395. According to the results of a preliminary study by the Maine Department of Transportation, this pilot project, which ran until mid-December of last year, helped to preserve and create jobs by allowing Maine's businesses to receive raw materials and to ship their products more economically.

Also important, the pilot program improved safety, saved energy, and reduced carbon emissions. Let me give a specific example. On a trip from Hampden to Houlton, ME, the benefits are obvious. A truck traveling on I-95 rather than on Route 2 avoids more than 270 intersections, 9 school crossings, 30 traffic lights, and 86 crosswalks. In addition, the driver also saves more than $30 on fuel. Given the cost of diesel, it is probably even higher than that now. Additionally, 50 minutes is saved by traveling on Interstate 95 rather than on the secondary road of Route 2.

Unfortunately, despite the clear success of this pilot project and the strong support of the administration and many of my colleagues in the Senate, the House of Representatives failed to include my provision making the pilot permanent in the Federal funding bill. As a result, for both Maine and Vermont, the program expired on December 17 and the heavy trucks are once again unable to use our most modern, safe, and efficient highways.

It is important to emphasize that our legislation does not increase the size or the weight of trucks in our States. Maine law already allows trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to operate on State and municipal roads. Heavy trucks already operate on some 22,500 miles of non-Interstate roads in Maine, in addition to the approximately 167 miles of the Maine turnpike. But the nearly 260 miles of non-turnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off limits. This simply makes no sense.

Furthermore, trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and the neighboring provinces in Canada. So that puts Maine and Vermont at a distinct competitive disadvantage. All around us, the States and our Canadian counterparts allow the heavier trucks to use the Federal interstates, but unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been excluded. That is why my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has joined me in this effort to help provide a level playing field for our States.

Here are a few more important points about our bill.

The 100,000-pound trucks are no larger or wider than 80,000-pound trucks. This change would remove an estimated 7.8 million truck miles from our local roads and streets. Increasing the truck payloads by 35 percent would reduce the overall number of trucks needed. In addition to saving fuel by traveling fewer miles, the steady pace of interstate driving improves the fuel economy of trucks by 14 to 21 percent. And the Maine Department of Transportation's engineers say they are confident our interstate bridges are safe and can handle the additional weight in the State of Maine.

Countless Maine small business owners have told me how this change would improve their competitiveness. For example, at a recent press conference, Keith Van Scotter discussed the savings his company accrued under the pilot project. Under the pilot project, his company Lincoln Paper and Tissue was able to save 1.1 million billable truck miles, a 28 percent decrease from the year before. These savings are the equivalent of the company being 220 miles closer to its primary market. Also, the owner-operator of a logging business in Penobscot County said that being able to transport his pulpwood to the mill on I-95 rather than on secondary roads would save his company at least 118 gallons of fuel each week. That benefits not only this small business but also our Nation as we seek to reduce our overall fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions.

The pilot program has also made a dramatic improvement for some of our communities. According to the Maine DOT, before the pilot program began last December of 2009, more than 200 heavy trucks heading north on Route 201 crawled through downtown Vassalboro a small town of about 4,000--each day even though I-95 runs

parallel just a few miles away. During the span of the pilot program, the number of northbound trucks on Route 201 decreased by roughly 90 percent. These trucks were using the interstate where they belong.

I will tell you that since the pilot project expired, so many of my constituents have talked to me about the return of these heavy trucks to the residential neighborhoods in which they live, to downtown Portland, Orono, Brewer, Freeport, and other towns throughout our State. The fact is, this kind of road congestion caused by diverting these heavy trucks into downtowns and along secondary roads can lead to tragedy. A study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic consulting firm found that the crash rate of semitrailer trucks on Maine's secondary roads were 7 to 10 times higher than on the turnpike. It estimated that allowing these trucks to stay on the interstates could result in three fewer fatal crashes each year. Public safety agencies in Maine, including the Maine State Police, have long supported my efforts to bring about this change. In fact, Bangor's police chief joined me at a press conference last week where he spoke eloquently about the safety implications for downtown Bangor.

In 2010, as a result of this pilot project, people throughout our State saw their roads less congested, our States safer, our air cleaner, and, most important, our businesses more competitive. That is why I am so committed to ensuring that these improvements are allowed to continue and are made permanent.

This legislation simply is common sense. It will benefit our economy as well as lower fuel costs and make our roads safer for most tourists and pedestrians. Most important, we now have the concrete evidence from this pilot project showing why this bill should become law.

I am grateful for the support and leadership of my colleague from Vermont and the steadfast support from Maine's senior Senator as well. I urge its swift passage. This is the highest priority I have for the State of Maine this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters I have received endorsing this bill. These letters are from the Maine Motor Transport Association, the City of Bangor's chief of police, the Professional Logging Contractors, the Northeast Region for the Forestry Resources Association, and from a well-known trucking firm in Maine, H.O. Bouchard.

In addition, I expect to have a letter from the Governor of Maine later today that I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. President, improving public safety, growing our economy, increasing energy independence, and protecting the environment have always been among my top priorities as a Senator. Today, the very first bill I am introducing in this new Congress will advance all of those goals by allowing the heaviest trucks to travel on our Federal interstate highways in Maine rather than being forced to use secondary roads and downtown streets.

I am delighted to have the senior Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, as my Democratic cosponsor, and my good friend and colleague from Maine, Olympia Snowe, also as an original cosponsor. Vermont has the same problem as we do in Maine. Thus the bill I am introducing applies to our two States.

In 2009, I authored a law to establish a 1-year pilot project that allowed trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's Federal interstates--I-95, 195, 295, and 395. According to the results of a preliminary study by the Maine Department of Transportation, this pilot project, which ran until mid-December of last year, helped to preserve and create jobs by allowing Maine's businesses to receive raw materials and to ship their products more economically.

Also important, the pilot program improved safety, saved energy, and reduced carbon emissions. Let me give a specific example. On a trip from Hampden to Houlton, ME, the benefits are obvious. A truck traveling on I-95 rather than on Route 2 avoids more than 270 intersections, 9 school crossings, 30 traffic lights, and 86 crosswalks. In addition, the driver also saves more than $30 on fuel. Given the cost of diesel, it is probably even higher than that now. Additionally, 50 minutes is saved by traveling on Interstate 95 rather than on the secondary road of Route 2.

Unfortunately, despite the clear success of this pilot project and the strong support of the administration and many of my colleagues in the Senate, the House of Representatives failed to include my provision making the pilot permanent in the Federal funding bill. As a result, for both Maine and Vermont, the program expired on December 17 and the heavy trucks are once again unable to use our most modern, safe, and efficient highways.

It is important to emphasize that our legislation does not increase the size or the weight of trucks in our States. Maine law already allows trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to operate on State and municipal roads. Heavy trucks already operate on some 22,500 miles of non-Interstate roads in Maine, in addition to the approximately 167 miles of the Maine turnpike. But the nearly 260 miles of non-turnpike interstates that are the major economic corridors in my State are off limits. This simply makes no sense.

Furthermore, trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already permitted on many Federal interstates in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and the neighboring provinces in Canada. So that puts Maine and Vermont at a distinct competitive disadvantage. All around us, the States and our Canadian counterparts allow the heavier trucks to use the Federal interstates, but unfortunately Maine and Vermont have been excluded. That is why my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has joined me in this effort to help provide a level playing field for our States.

Here are a few more important points about our bill.

The 100,000-pound trucks are no larger or wider than 80,000-pound trucks. This change would remove an estimated 7.8 million truck miles from our local roads and streets. Increasing the truck payloads by 35 percent would reduce the overall number of trucks needed. In addition to saving fuel by traveling fewer miles, the steady pace of interstate driving improves the fuel economy of trucks by 14 to 21 percent. And the Maine Department of Transportation's engineers say they are confident our interstate bridges are safe and can handle the additional weight in the State of Maine.

Countless Maine small business owners have told me how this change would improve their competitiveness. For example, at a recent press conference, Keith Van Scotter discussed the savings his company accrued under the pilot project. Under the pilot project, his company Lincoln Paper and Tissue was able to save 1.1 million billable truck miles, a 28 percent decrease from the year before. These savings are the equivalent of the company being 220 miles closer to its primary market. Also, the owner-operator of a logging business in Penobscot County said that being able to transport his pulpwood to the mill on I-95 rather than on secondary roads would save his company at least 118 gallons of fuel each week. That benefits not only this small business but also our Nation as we seek to reduce our overall fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions.

The pilot program has also made a dramatic improvement for some of our communities. According to the Maine DOT, before the pilot program began last December of 2009, more than 200 heavy trucks heading north on Route 201 crawled through downtown Vassalboro a small town of about 4,000--each day even though I-95 runs

parallel just a few miles away. During the span of the pilot program, the number of northbound trucks on Route 201 decreased by roughly 90 percent. These trucks were using the interstate where they belong.

I will tell you that since the pilot project expired, so many of my constituents have talked to me about the return of these heavy trucks to the residential neighborhoods in which they live, to downtown Portland, Orono, Brewer, Freeport, and other towns throughout our State. The fact is, this kind of road congestion caused by diverting these heavy trucks into downtowns and along secondary roads can lead to tragedy. A study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic consulting firm found that the crash rate of semitrailer trucks on Maine's secondary roads were 7 to 10 times higher than on the turnpike. It estimated that allowing these trucks to stay on the interstates could result in three fewer fatal crashes each year. Public safety agencies in Maine, including the Maine State Police, have long supported my efforts to bring about this change. In fact, Bangor's police chief joined me at a press conference last week where he spoke eloquently about the safety implications for downtown Bangor.

In 2010, as a result of this pilot project, people throughout our State saw their roads less congested, our States safer, our air cleaner, and, most important, our businesses more competitive. That is why I am so committed to ensuring that these improvements are allowed to continue and are made permanent.

This legislation simply is common sense. It will benefit our economy as well as lower fuel costs and make our roads safer for most tourists and pedestrians. Most important, we now have the concrete evidence from this pilot project showing why this bill should become law.

I am grateful for the support and leadership of my colleague from Vermont and the steadfast support from Maine's senior Senator as well. I urge its swift passage. This is the highest priority I have for the State of Maine this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of letters I have received endorsing this bill. These letters are from the Maine Motor Transport Association, the City of Bangor's chief of police, the Professional Logging Contractors, the Northeast Region for the Forestry Resources Association, and from a well-known trucking firm in Maine, H.O. Bouchard.

In addition, I expect to have a letter from the Governor of Maine later today that I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 112 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Barbara Mikulski on becoming the longest-serving woman in Senate history. While this is a milestone to celebrate, the true cause for celebration is not just Senator Mikulski's decades of service to this chamber, but her lifetime of service to her beloved Baltimore, her state of Maryland, and our Nation.

This occasion has a special meaning for Sen. Snowe and me. As she begins her 25th year in the Senate, Senator Mikulski now surpasses my personal role model in public service, Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Just as the Great Lady from Maine inspired Sen. Snowe and me as well as countless other young women of my generation to serve, Senator Mikulski inspires the young women of today.

As a new Senator in 1997, I was one of those tutored by Senator Mikulski. She taught me the ropes of the appropriations process and instituted regular bipartisan dinners for the women of the Senate.

It has been a privilege to work with Senator Mikulski for 14 years. During that time, I have come to know her as a fighter, a trailblazer, and as a dear friend. She is committed to the people of her state and of America.

Senator Mikulski is, above all, a hard worker. Growing up in East Baltimore, she learned the value of hard work at her family's grocery store. Her commitment to making a difference in her neighborhood led her to become a social worker, helping at-risk children and the elderly.

Her activism and understanding of community needs led to her first successful run for public office, the Baltimore City Council in 1971. Five years later, she came to Washington as a member of Congress, representing Maryland's 3rd District.

After 10 years of service in the House, she was elected to the Senate in 1986. In so doing, she became the first Democratic Senator elected in her own right. The people of Maryland wisely returned her to office in 1992, 1998, 2004, and again in 2010.

Senator Mikulski's longevity is only the preface to her story of exceptional accomplishment. She has fought for increased access to higher education and for improved health care for our seniors. I am proud to have fought at her side on those issues, as well as for increased Alzheimer's research, improved women's health care, and enhanced educational opportunities for nurses.

Working with her on the Appropriations Committee, I have witnessed firsthand how seriously she takes her responsibility to the American taxpayers.

Throughout her life in public service, Senator Mikulski has lived by one guiding principle: her obligation is to help our people meet the needs of today as she helps our Nation prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. It is an honor to congratulate the Great Lady from Maryland for her many years of service, and to wish her many more.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the New START treaty. Before I begin, I would like to thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their leadership on this important arms control agreement.

When I first began to consider this treaty, I considered the fundamental question of whether we are better off with it or without it since the previous START treaty expired a year ago. By reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons in a mutual and verifiable way, I believe that this treaty does enhance our security, but it is not without flaws.

Our choice is not, however, between some ideal treaty and the New START treaty. It is between this treaty and having no inspection regime in place at all since the previous START treaty expired in December of 2009.

In evaluating this treaty, I scrutinized several issues including the effect on our Nation's security, the need to modernize our nuclear deterrent, the effectiveness of verification and inspection regimes, and the impact on missile defense.

These and other issues were fully covered in classified briefings as well as in the seven Senate Armed Services Committee hearings that I attended that included testimony from Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Chilton, the commander of our nuclear forces. We also heard testimony from the three current directors of our national nuclear laboratories and a number of former government officials and national security experts.

I met personally with Rose Gottemoeller, the top U.S. treaty negotiator, and sought counsel from GEN Brent Scowcroft, who has served as an adviser to four Republican Presidents and was the National Security Adviser to President George H. W. Bush.

I also have met with a wide range of Mainers--foreign policy experts, religious leaders, and former members of the military--who expressed their views on the treaty to me.

Clearly, the New START treaty enjoys broad bipartisan support. Secretaries of State for the past five Republican Presidents, including GEN Colin Powell, support its ratification, as does former Maine Senator and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen.

No Member of this body should support a treaty simply because it has strong bipartisan support. But neither should we withhold our support for a treaty simply because it was negotiated and signed by a President from a different political party.

The fact is that the New START treaty is a modest arms control agreement. The treaty does not require the destruction of a single nuclear weapon. Under the New START framework, a 30-percent reduction in the number of deployed warheads in the arsenals of the United States and Russia will be required.

As such, the New START treaty places the United States and the Russian Federation on a path to achieve mutual and verifiable reductions over the next 7 years. Failure to ratify a treaty that makes modest reductions in the deployment of nuclear weapons would represent a giant step backwards in the commitment of the United States to arms control. If we cannot reduce the deployed nuclear stockpiles of the two countries that hold 9 of every 10 nuclear weapons in the world, how can we expect other countries not to seek any nuclear weapons?

Yet the New START treaty has significance beyond its function as an arms control agreement. New START is one component of our bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. In April 2009, I traveled to Moscow with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin. At that time, I indicated that while I supported the President's commitment to reset the U.S.-Russian relationship, it was ultimately up to the Russians to see if they wanted to have a stronger relationship.

Since then, Russia has expanded the use of northern supply routes for our military forces in Afghanistan and has cancelled the sale of advanced surface to air missiles to Iran. These are positive steps.

During that same trip to Moscow, Chairman Levin and I sought to encourage Russian officials to cooperate on missile defense in Europe. And this issue of missile defense raises an important point about the U.S.-Russian relationship. Just because our relationship with the Russians is important does not mean that we must compromise on an issue vital to our national security. One of those issues is missile defense.

I was troubled when I read the unilateral statements made by Russian leaders who sought to make a binding tie between missile defense and the New START agreement.

The Kerry-Lugar resolution of ratification eliminates any doubt that the United States will continue to develop missile defense systems. The proposed resolution of ratification clarifies that the treaty places no limitation on the

deployment of U.S. missile defense systems except for those contained in article 5. It further clarifies that the Russian unilateral statement regarding missile defense ``does not impose a legal obligation on the United States.''

The resolution of ratification goes beyond expressing the position that the United States will deploy an effective national missile defense system. It declares that the United States is committed to improving its strategic defensive capabilities, both quantitatively and qualitatively, during the lifetime of the treaty.

In addition to developing a robust missile defense capability, it is equally imperative that the United States maintain a modernized nuclear weapons program as we consider further reductions in nuclear arms.

In March, I traveled with my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to discuss nuclear modernization with our allies. I learned a great deal from an in-depth briefing with French physicists about our need to modernize our own nuclear arsenal.

As Secretary of Defense Gates has noted, ``The United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead.'' The Perry-Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission noted that the nuclear weapons complex ``physical infrastructure is in serious need of transformation.''

In response, the administration has made a commitment to invest $14 billion in new funding over the next 10 years for the nuclear weapons complex. As a result, the safety, stability, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent can be improved. The new investments will double the surveillance within the nuclear stockpile from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2011. Finally, the Administration has proposed nearly $9 billion for our plutonium and uranium facilities, and it has made a commitment to request additional funding necessary for those facilities once the designs are completed.

While the New START treaty contributes to reducing the threat of nuclear war and strengthens nuclear nonproliferation efforts, it is disappointing to me that the treaty reflects an outdated view of one of the primary threats to our national security. This treaty does not address the significant disparity between the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Russia's stockpile compared to our own.

The Perry-Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission reported that Russia had an estimated 3,800 tactical nuclear weapons compared to fewer than 500 in our own stockpile. By maintaining a distinction between the threats of nuclear attack that warrant the ratification of a treaty from those nuclear threats that do not simply based upon the distance from which a nuclear weapon is launched or the method by which such a weapon is launched, we preserve a Cold War mentality regarding the nuclear threats facing our country.

The large numerical disparity in the number of warheads each country maintains is not the only reason they warrant a higher priority than they were given by either country in this treaty.

As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I believe that the characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons, particularly their vulnerability for theft and potential for nuclear terrorism, make reducing their numbers essential to our national security.

President Obama correctly described the greatest threat facing our Nation in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review when he said that ``the threat of global nuclear war has become remote, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased . . . today's most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism.''

Several arms control groups, including the Stimson Center, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have each stated that the danger of these weapons rests not only in the destructive power of each weapon but also because they are vulnerable to theft by rogue nations and terrorist groups.

Earlier this month, I wrote to Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton about my concerns regarding this issue and requested a commitment from them to seek reductions in the number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons.

I would like to read a portion of their response for those of my colleagues who share my concern regarding this disparity:

The Administration is committed to seeking improved

security of, and reductions in, Russian tactical nuclear

weapons. We agree with the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee's call, in the resolution of advice and consent to

ratification of the New START treaty, to pursue an agreement

with the Russians to address them. These negotiations offer

our best chance to constrain Russian tactical nuclear

weapons, but we believe Russia will be unlikely to begin such

negotiations if the New START treaty does not enter into

force.

The letter further states that:

With regard to future agreements, we strongly agree with

you that the characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons--

particularly their vulnerability to theft, misuse, or

acquisition by terrorists--make reducing their numbers and

enhancing their safety and security extremely important.

I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the Secretaries and their response be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

So where does that leave us? Does the New START treaty lead to mutual and verifiable reductions in nuclear arms? Does the New START treaty renew our Nation's commitment to arms control? Given the commitments by the administration, will it reinvigorate our nuclear nonproliferation efforts?

The answers to these questions were most succinctly addressed in a statement by the leader who negotiated and signed the first START treaty, former President George H.W. Bush. I will conclude by associating myself with his comments on the issue, which I will read in full: ``I urge the United States Senate to ratify the [New] START treaty.''

Mr. President, when George Voinovich came to the Senate in 1998, he brought with him a wealth of experience as a State legislator, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor. More important, he brought an independent mind, common sense, and a commitment to results.

Through more than four decades of public service, he has always been guided by the principle that a fundamental obligation of government is to honor its responsibilities to citizens. His goal has always been to ensure that those in public office ``work harder and smarter, and do more with less.''

But Senator Voinovich is revered here and at home for deeds, not words. As mayor, he brought Cleveland back from bankruptcy and led its transformation into a three-time All-America City. As Governor, he steered Ohio through the recession of the early 1990s, turned a State budget in the red back to black, and helped rebuild Ohio's industry and infrastructure for the 21st century.

From his executive background in local and State government, Senator Voinovich knew that any government is only as good as the people working for it. He has been a strong advocate for improved government management, and for recruiting, retaining, rewarding, and recognizing the best government workforce.

It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Voinovich on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He is devoted to protecting our Nation and our people.

Our committee's work was aided greatly by his leadership of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, and his conviction that government works only when it ensures that the right people have the right resources to get the job done. He has been instrumental in virtually every major civil service issue for more than a decade and has championed 17 pieces of legislation to transform and improve our Federal workforce.

Since coming to Washington, the ``Workforce Senator'' has been a watchdog for the interests of the taxpayers and of government employees. Early in his service, the Senior Executive Service Performance Improvement Act and the Chief Human Capital Officers Act recognized that the Federal Government must compete if it is to attract the best. In this Congress, the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act addressed the need to streamline recruiting so that the right person can be hired at the right time.

And his efforts have been successful. A recent Federal employee survey on the best places to work found that the top three agencies-- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, GAO, and NASA--are the agencies with the personnel flexibilities Senator Voinovich worked to achieve.

I know how deeply George Voinovich cares about the men and women who serve as Federal employees because on many issues we have fought together. In particular, I want to recognize his role in pressing for pay for performance reforms in our Federal workforce. If we want an effective government, we must encourage excellence in our workforce, as Senator Voinovich clearly understands.

He has been an effective voice for fiscal discipline, for comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, and for enhancing America's competitiveness in a global economy. All of these issues and so many more demonstrate his commitment to honoring responsibilities and achieving results.

When Senator Voinovich announced early last year that he would not seek reelection, the outpouring of tributes was heartfelt and bipartisan. As one Ohio newspaper wrote, ``Once he latches on to an issue, he doesn't let go until he is satisfied with the outcome.''

Senator Voinovich's determination, combined with wisdom, experience, and decency, made him an outstanding U.S. Senator and public servant. I thank George Voinovich for his years of service and for his friendship, and wish him and Janet all the best in the years to come.

Russ Feingold

Madam President, on Monday, the Senate took an important step toward extending critical tax relief for all Americans by approving cloture on the Reid-McConnell amendment, by an overwhelming vote. This bipartisan vote is encouraging and demonstrates that Members of this body can work together, with the President, to do what is reasonable and right to address the economic challenges our Nation continues to face.

As with any compromise, however, the bill is not perfect, and I would like to note for the record several--although not all--of the items I believe should have been handled differently.

First, I am concerned about the failure to include an extension of the production tax credit for existing open-loop biomass facilities. This credit is critical for preserving renewable energy and forestry jobs in Maine and across the United States, and an extension of this credit was included in previous tax proposals. According to the American Forest & Paper Association and the Biomass Power Association, since the start of 2008, at least 35 paper mills have permanently closed and more than 75 other facilities have experienced market- related downtime. In the biomass sector this year, six facilities have closed, three in Maine and three in California, and more are under the threat of closure.

The bill would be improved by extending the tax credit period for existing open-loop biomass facilities, as called for by Senator Bill Nelson's amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment would allow these facilities to remain competitive with other forms of renewable energy, saving jobs that are seriously at risk.

Second, I am concerned that the decision by the drafters to strike language added to the Tax Code by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could lead to unnecessary confusion regarding certain wood stoves.

For example, the bill strikes language that I sought in ARRA to clarify how the thermal efficiency of residential wood and wood-pellet stoves should be measured for purposes of the tax credit in section 25C. That tax credit was created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which did not specify a methodology for determining thermal efficiency. The IRS has issued guidance directing that the ``lower heating value'' methodology should be used, which is consistent with industry practices and with our intent to ensure that the credit is available for efficient and clean-burning wood and wood- pellet stoves.

Removing the reference to the ``lower heating value'' from the code serves little purpose. Certainly, however, it does not mean that this commonsense methodology is precluded, nor does it require the IRS to revisit its methodology. I hope that my comments today will help avoid confusion about the use of the ``lower heating value'' methodology with respect to this tax credit.

Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not hold the line on a tax credit for corn-based ethanol and some other special interest provisions. The corn-based ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive, costing some $6 billion in subsidies from taxpayers annually according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over recent years we have also seen food and feed prices rise as crops have been diverted to first generation biofuel production. In addition, corn-based ethanol mandates present an environmental concern as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants, because mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of emission control devices and systems installed on engines.

Of course, a bill without these flaws would have been preferable, but with the economy still weak, and with unemployment persisting at nearly 10 percent nationally, now is not the time to be raising taxes, and this bill averts one of the largest tax increases in history. America needs jobs--not higher taxes.

In September, I first urged my colleagues and the administration to come together around this 2-year compromise that will get us through the recession and send a strong signal to the business community to invest and create jobs. I am pleased that the Senate has acted to give families some confidence and business owners some certainty.

I encourage my colleagues in the Congress and the President to use this

2-year period to undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our system fairer, simpler, and more progrowth.