Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., formally announced on Monday that their Committee will be conducting an investigation into last week’s murders at Ft. Hood, beginning with a public hearing next week.
The Senators released the following statements today on their inquiry and intention to hold hearings on the attack:
“This murderous attack should be examined from every angle to make sure nothing like this occurs again,” Lieberman said. “While we in no way will interfere with the Army or FBI’s criminal investigations, the Committee will be conducting an investigation into what Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s motives were, whether the government missed warning signs that should have led to expulsion, and what lessons we can learn to prevent such future attacks. As this investigation continues, we would do no favor to the thousands of Muslim Americans who are serving our military with honor and the millions of patriotic and law-abiding Muslim Americans by ignoring real evidence that an individual Muslim American soldier may have become a violent Islamist extremist.
“Three years ago, this Committee, then led by Senator Collins, started an investigation into the threat of homegrown Islamist terrorism. That resulted in a bipartisan report concluding ‘no longer is the [terrorist] threat just from abroad, as was the case with the attacks of September 11, 2001; the threat is now increasingly from within, from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live.’ This attack, in addition to recent cases in Minnesota, Arkansas, North Carolina and elsewhere, appears to be a further example of that threat. At a September 2007 hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Committee that ‘lone wolf’ terrorists were of particular concern to law enforcement and that we needed to take steps to address that particular threat. The United States needs to heed his warning.”
Senator Collins said: “The Fort Hood slayings were tragic and heartbreaking. It is important for our nation to understand what precipitated this horrific attack so that we may work to prevent future incidents. The investigation is about understanding the factors that led Major Hasan—a senior Army officer and a psychiatrist trained to ease human suffering—to kill and injure so many of his fellow soldiers. We owe that to our military, to their families, and to their communities.
“Our military must be prepared to detect the warning signs for potential violence and to intervene and prevent similar attacks in the future,” she said. “This hearing is vital to assuring the men and women serving in our military and their families that their safety is a top priority for us.
“Let me express my personal gratitude to the thousands of American Muslims serving in our military and working to defeat terrorism. Any of them could have been another victim of Major Hasan’s attack,” Collins noted.”
Since December 2006, the Committee has held nine hearings on the threat of homegrown terrorism. In May 2008, the Committee released a report, “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.”
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Senator Collins' blog- from Libya to Iraq
U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is part of a congressional delegation that has embarked on an official visit to the Middle East. Senator Collins is joined on the trip by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-NC).
After a press conference in Tripoli first thing this morning, we departed for Kuwait where we boarded a C-130 cargo plane to fly into Iraq. The C-130 is jammed full of soldiers and their gear. Along the sides of the plane and in the middle are red webbed canvas and metal frame seats that fold down from the walls of the plane and from the steel posts in the middle.
Every inch of the plane is utilized for equipment and cargo. Gear is suspended from the walls, clipped to the ceilings, and piled high on the metal floor.
Each of us is handed ear plugs and an air sickness bag as we board, and assigned a bullet-proof vest and helmet that we don as we get closer to landing.
The plane is too noisy to talk, too dark to read, and too crowded to move around, so most of the soldiers and Senator McCain, who can sleep anywhere, doze off. The plane is extremely hot.
For me one of the physically difficult parts of this journey is wearing the heavy and always-too-big flak vest. I don't know how our troops manage all the gear they carry.
As we leave the plane, we chat with the soldiers and express appreciation for their service. It is 113 degrees when we land in Iraq.
Then we take a helicopter to the Green Zone. I am off to meetings with General Odierno and Ambassador Hill.
By the way, although I often write these reports in real time, I have to delay sending them until several hours later for security reasons.
After a press conference in Tripoli first thing this morning, we departed for Kuwait where we boarded a C-130 cargo plane to fly into Iraq. The C-130 is jammed full of soldiers and their gear. Along the sides of the plane and in the middle are red webbed canvas and metal frame seats that fold down from the walls of the plane and from the steel posts in the middle.
Every inch of the plane is utilized for equipment and cargo. Gear is suspended from the walls, clipped to the ceilings, and piled high on the metal floor.
Each of us is handed ear plugs and an air sickness bag as we board, and assigned a bullet-proof vest and helmet that we don as we get closer to landing.
The plane is too noisy to talk, too dark to read, and too crowded to move around, so most of the soldiers and Senator McCain, who can sleep anywhere, doze off. The plane is extremely hot.
For me one of the physically difficult parts of this journey is wearing the heavy and always-too-big flak vest. I don't know how our troops manage all the gear they carry.
As we leave the plane, we chat with the soldiers and express appreciation for their service. It is 113 degrees when we land in Iraq.
Then we take a helicopter to the Green Zone. I am off to meetings with General Odierno and Ambassador Hill.
By the way, although I often write these reports in real time, I have to delay sending them until several hours later for security reasons.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Senator Collins- Blog from Libya
I am on Senate Armed Services Committee business with my colleagues, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham. We flew all night and arrived in Tripoli, Libya, this morning where we were greeted by staff from our embassy and Libyan protocol officials.
We are scheduled to meet this evening with Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, who rules Libya, and separately with his son, Muatassim al-Qadhafi, who is the National Security Advisor. Our relationship with Libya has improved dramatically in the wake of Qadhafi's decision to forgo WMD in 2003 and his cooperation with the U.S. on counterterrorism efforts. Qadhafi views the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a threat to his regime.
Despite these common interests, there are obvious concerns. Qadhafi is a dictator who has ruled Libya with an iron fist for 40 years. Posters with the number 40 and Qadhafi's picture are everywhere in Libya in anticipation of a September celebration of his four decades of rule. Dissent is not tolerated; the press is state-owned, and the country's human rights record is appalling.
Senator Collins will be updating her blog from other locations throughout her trip.
We are scheduled to meet this evening with Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, who rules Libya, and separately with his son, Muatassim al-Qadhafi, who is the National Security Advisor. Our relationship with Libya has improved dramatically in the wake of Qadhafi's decision to forgo WMD in 2003 and his cooperation with the U.S. on counterterrorism efforts. Qadhafi views the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a threat to his regime.
Despite these common interests, there are obvious concerns. Qadhafi is a dictator who has ruled Libya with an iron fist for 40 years. Posters with the number 40 and Qadhafi's picture are everywhere in Libya in anticipation of a September celebration of his four decades of rule. Dissent is not tolerated; the press is state-owned, and the country's human rights record is appalling.
Senator Collins will be updating her blog from other locations throughout her trip.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Senator Collins supports bill to better regulate tobacco products
Collins is original cosponsor of legislation that passed the Senate today 79-17
Senator Collins voted to support legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to regulate the production and marketing of tobacco products. Senator Collins is an original cosponsor of the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” which would prevent tobacco companies from using misleading or inaccurate health claims, require them to inform consumers of tobacco product ingredients, and would restrict tobacco advertising and promotions that target children.
“Tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death in the United States today,” said Senator Collins. “Despite all the harm they cause, however, tobacco products are exempt from even the most basic health and safety regulations. This long-overdue legislation gives clear and comprehensive authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and better protect adults and children from the dangers of tobacco.”
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has been endorsed by a wide array of national public health and medical groups including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Dental Association, the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, AARP, the Children’s Defenses Fund and Families U.S.A.
Maine organizations endorsing the bill include the Maine Medical Association, the Maine Dental Association, the Maine Lung Association, the Maine Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society - Maine, and the Maine CDC.
Senator Collins voted to support legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to regulate the production and marketing of tobacco products. Senator Collins is an original cosponsor of the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” which would prevent tobacco companies from using misleading or inaccurate health claims, require them to inform consumers of tobacco product ingredients, and would restrict tobacco advertising and promotions that target children.
“Tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death in the United States today,” said Senator Collins. “Despite all the harm they cause, however, tobacco products are exempt from even the most basic health and safety regulations. This long-overdue legislation gives clear and comprehensive authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and better protect adults and children from the dangers of tobacco.”
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act has been endorsed by a wide array of national public health and medical groups including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Dental Association, the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, AARP, the Children’s Defenses Fund and Families U.S.A.
Maine organizations endorsing the bill include the Maine Medical Association, the Maine Dental Association, the Maine Lung Association, the Maine Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society - Maine, and the Maine CDC.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Afghan reconstruction oversight bill passes Senate
Bipartisan legislation that would provide the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) with the authority it needs to quickly hire experienced, well-qualified staff to conduct rigorous oversight of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan unanimously passed the Senate this week. The legislation was co-authored by Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Susan Collins (R-ME), Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The mission of the SIGAR is to conduct audits and investigations of the humanitarian and reconstruction assistance that U.S. has provided to Afghanistan, which currently stands at about $32 billion since 2001, to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Original co-sponsors of the legislation also include Carl Levin (D-MI), John McCain (R-AZ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Charles Grassley (R-IA).
Although the SIGAR was sworn into office in July 2008, it has not yet conducted any independent audits or investigations. SIGAR has faced difficultly in hiring the auditors and investigators it needs to conduct necessary oversight. Although authorized a total of 18 auditors, 13 inspectors, and three investigators, SIGAR has only five auditors, two inspectors, and one investigator.
“SIGAR’s efforts to quickly hire experienced staff have been hindered by the often long and difficult government hiring process,” said Senator Collins. “The office’s hiring needs are further complicated by the challenging task of recruiting well-qualified staff willing to spend a year in a dangerous environment. This legislation would provide the SIGAR with the authority to select, appoint, and employ the staff needed to perform effective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction efforts.”
Senator Lieberman said, “This legislation will allow the SIGAR to use special civil service authorities so he can quickly hire the experienced auditors, inspectors and other professionals he needs to ensure that Afghanistan reconstruction projects are progressing efficiently, effectively, and with a minimum of waste fraud and abuse.”
“SIGAR is a vital part of our Afghanistan reconstruction effort, which is about turning the service and sacrifices of our servicemen and women into sustainable and permanent change on the ground. This legislation will help ensure that our reconstruction effort can improve and adapt quickly, just like the enemy we are fighting,” Dr. Coburn said.
The legislation will allow SIGAR to identify and quickly hire candidates, avoiding civil service requirements that are unnecessary for this unique and temporary organization. Employees hired under this new authority can serve until the termination of the SIGAR’s office.
“If the SIGAR would have had this authority from the office’s inception, it likely would be much further along in conducting its oversight work. It is expected that once the SIGAR can quickly hire the skilled and experienced auditors and investigators it needs, the office’s oversight activities will greatly increase,” said Senator Collins.
The legislation must now be passed by the House of Representatives.
Original co-sponsors of the legislation also include Carl Levin (D-MI), John McCain (R-AZ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Charles Grassley (R-IA).
Although the SIGAR was sworn into office in July 2008, it has not yet conducted any independent audits or investigations. SIGAR has faced difficultly in hiring the auditors and investigators it needs to conduct necessary oversight. Although authorized a total of 18 auditors, 13 inspectors, and three investigators, SIGAR has only five auditors, two inspectors, and one investigator.
“SIGAR’s efforts to quickly hire experienced staff have been hindered by the often long and difficult government hiring process,” said Senator Collins. “The office’s hiring needs are further complicated by the challenging task of recruiting well-qualified staff willing to spend a year in a dangerous environment. This legislation would provide the SIGAR with the authority to select, appoint, and employ the staff needed to perform effective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction efforts.”
Senator Lieberman said, “This legislation will allow the SIGAR to use special civil service authorities so he can quickly hire the experienced auditors, inspectors and other professionals he needs to ensure that Afghanistan reconstruction projects are progressing efficiently, effectively, and with a minimum of waste fraud and abuse.”
“SIGAR is a vital part of our Afghanistan reconstruction effort, which is about turning the service and sacrifices of our servicemen and women into sustainable and permanent change on the ground. This legislation will help ensure that our reconstruction effort can improve and adapt quickly, just like the enemy we are fighting,” Dr. Coburn said.
The legislation will allow SIGAR to identify and quickly hire candidates, avoiding civil service requirements that are unnecessary for this unique and temporary organization. Employees hired under this new authority can serve until the termination of the SIGAR’s office.
“If the SIGAR would have had this authority from the office’s inception, it likely would be much further along in conducting its oversight work. It is expected that once the SIGAR can quickly hire the skilled and experienced auditors and investigators it needs, the office’s oversight activities will greatly increase,” said Senator Collins.
The legislation must now be passed by the House of Representatives.
Senator Collins introduces bill to regulate Credit Default Swaps
WASHINGTON ¬– Today Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., introduced legislation to give federal financial regulators immediate authority to regulate trillions of dollars in swap transactions that continue to be marketed and traded in the United States without adequate government oversight. The Authorizing the Regulation of Swaps Act would repeal statutory prohibitions that currently bar government regulation of swap markets, including credit default swaps.
“Public confidence in our nation’s financial system has been shaken badly by the financial meltdown,” said Senator Collins. “As a former Maine financial regulator, I am convinced that significant regulatory reforms are required to restore public confidence and to ensure that lack of regulation does not allow such a crisis in the future. The current structure of our financial system lacks much needed reporting and transparency requirements in the swaps market, which many experts believe helped contribute to the current financial crisis.”
Sen. Collins continued: “The consequences in our country have been dire: falling home prices, rising foreclosure rates, plunging consumer sales, increased unemployment, and a tremendous erosion of retirement savings. While local credit unions and small community banks are subject to safety-and-soundness regulation, enormous Wall Street financial institutions that have a far greater impact on our economy have not been subject to such regulation. This legislation would clear the way for federal financial regulators to oversee the swaps market. It is a critical component of the overall reform needed to restore confidence in our financial regulatory system.”
“Multi-trillion-dollar unregulated swaps markets are going full bore without government oversight or authority to protect taxpayers from risk,” said Sen. Levin. “Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on AIG and others that got in over their head on swaps while regulators’ hands were tied. Taxpayers ended up paying the bill. Our legislation would take the first step to reduce risk by removing statutory barriers and giving federal regulators clear authority to put a cop on the beat in swaps markets. Congress ought to put those cops on the beat right now, without waiting for a possible comprehensive financial reform bill later this year.”
Swaps are typically an agreement between two parties placing a bet on future cash flows. Some swaps bet on whether a stock price, interest rate, commodity price, or currency value will rise or fall; others bet on whether a company will default on payment of a bond. Stock price bets are referred to as equity swaps; bets on whether companies will pay their debts are referred to as credit default swaps.
According to the latest data compiled by the Bank of International Settlements, as of June 2008, worldwide swaps markets included credit default swaps with a total notional value of $57 trillion; commodity swaps with a notional value of $13 trillion; equity swaps with a notional value of $10 trillion; foreign currency swaps with a notional value of $62 trillion; and interest rate swaps with a notional value of $458 trillion.
The bill would remove statutory barriers and allow immediate regulation of all types of swap agreements. The prohibitions to be repealed by the bill were first enacted in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a complex bill that was slipped into a large appropriations bill, without notice, during the last days of the 106th Congress.
Last fall, then-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called on Congress to take “swift action” to overturn the legal ban on regulating credit default swaps. Even some past opponents of regulating swaps now support federal regulation. For example, former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Arthur Levitt recently said it was a mistake not to have regulated swap agreements. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said that derivatives, which include swaps, “create systemic risk.” Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last October that “serious problems” are associated with credit default swaps.
Top officials in the Obama Administration, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, SEC Chair Mary Schapiro, and Gary Gensler, nominee to head the CFTC, have all called for stronger regulation of over-the-counter transactions, including swap agreements.
Sens. Collins and Levin call the bill an “interim measure intended to clear the way for more specific swaps requirements” in financial reform legislation which could come later this year. They note that the bill would not specify how swaps should be regulated, but would simply provide authority to act.
“Taxpayers are now on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for companies that engaged in unregulated swaps,” Levin said. “This legislation can bring transparency, accountability, and stability to financial markets that are badly in need of all three, and where government oversight is now prohibited by laws proven to have been a mistake.”
Bill Summary
Repeal Existing Prohibitions on Regulating Swaps. The bill would repeal over a dozen provisions in existing law, including in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which prohibit federal financial regulators from regulating swap agreements.
Authorize the Regulation of Swaps. The bill would give authority to federal financial regulators, including bank, securities and commodities regulators, to oversee and regulate all types of swap agreements, including credit default, commodity, equity, interest rate, and foreign currency swaps. Those regulators could no longer use as an excuse for not regulating swaps the prohibitions which exist in current law. The bill uses the same definition of swaps that is used in current law to prohibit swaps regulation, and would authorize federal oversight and regulation of all exchange-traded and over-the-counter swap agreements, without exception.
Require Consistent Treatment of Swaps. The bill does not require federal regulators to regulate swap agreements -- it merely authorizes such regulation and removes the statutory barriers in place since 2000. Nor does the bill provide any direction to federal regulators on how to regulate swaps other than to require them to consult, work, and cooperate with each other to promote consistency in the treatment of swap agreements.
Establish Interim Authority. By removing existing statutory prohibitions and providing federal financial regulators with authority to oversee and regulate swaps, the bill would eliminate harmful statutory barriers, give regulators immediate interim authority over multi-trillion-dollar swaps markets, and clear the way for more specific swaps requirements in subsequent comprehensive financial reform legislation later this year.
“Public confidence in our nation’s financial system has been shaken badly by the financial meltdown,” said Senator Collins. “As a former Maine financial regulator, I am convinced that significant regulatory reforms are required to restore public confidence and to ensure that lack of regulation does not allow such a crisis in the future. The current structure of our financial system lacks much needed reporting and transparency requirements in the swaps market, which many experts believe helped contribute to the current financial crisis.”
Sen. Collins continued: “The consequences in our country have been dire: falling home prices, rising foreclosure rates, plunging consumer sales, increased unemployment, and a tremendous erosion of retirement savings. While local credit unions and small community banks are subject to safety-and-soundness regulation, enormous Wall Street financial institutions that have a far greater impact on our economy have not been subject to such regulation. This legislation would clear the way for federal financial regulators to oversee the swaps market. It is a critical component of the overall reform needed to restore confidence in our financial regulatory system.”
“Multi-trillion-dollar unregulated swaps markets are going full bore without government oversight or authority to protect taxpayers from risk,” said Sen. Levin. “Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on AIG and others that got in over their head on swaps while regulators’ hands were tied. Taxpayers ended up paying the bill. Our legislation would take the first step to reduce risk by removing statutory barriers and giving federal regulators clear authority to put a cop on the beat in swaps markets. Congress ought to put those cops on the beat right now, without waiting for a possible comprehensive financial reform bill later this year.”
Swaps are typically an agreement between two parties placing a bet on future cash flows. Some swaps bet on whether a stock price, interest rate, commodity price, or currency value will rise or fall; others bet on whether a company will default on payment of a bond. Stock price bets are referred to as equity swaps; bets on whether companies will pay their debts are referred to as credit default swaps.
According to the latest data compiled by the Bank of International Settlements, as of June 2008, worldwide swaps markets included credit default swaps with a total notional value of $57 trillion; commodity swaps with a notional value of $13 trillion; equity swaps with a notional value of $10 trillion; foreign currency swaps with a notional value of $62 trillion; and interest rate swaps with a notional value of $458 trillion.
The bill would remove statutory barriers and allow immediate regulation of all types of swap agreements. The prohibitions to be repealed by the bill were first enacted in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a complex bill that was slipped into a large appropriations bill, without notice, during the last days of the 106th Congress.
Last fall, then-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called on Congress to take “swift action” to overturn the legal ban on regulating credit default swaps. Even some past opponents of regulating swaps now support federal regulation. For example, former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Arthur Levitt recently said it was a mistake not to have regulated swap agreements. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said that derivatives, which include swaps, “create systemic risk.” Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said last October that “serious problems” are associated with credit default swaps.
Top officials in the Obama Administration, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, SEC Chair Mary Schapiro, and Gary Gensler, nominee to head the CFTC, have all called for stronger regulation of over-the-counter transactions, including swap agreements.
Sens. Collins and Levin call the bill an “interim measure intended to clear the way for more specific swaps requirements” in financial reform legislation which could come later this year. They note that the bill would not specify how swaps should be regulated, but would simply provide authority to act.
“Taxpayers are now on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for companies that engaged in unregulated swaps,” Levin said. “This legislation can bring transparency, accountability, and stability to financial markets that are badly in need of all three, and where government oversight is now prohibited by laws proven to have been a mistake.”
Bill Summary
Repeal Existing Prohibitions on Regulating Swaps. The bill would repeal over a dozen provisions in existing law, including in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which prohibit federal financial regulators from regulating swap agreements.
Authorize the Regulation of Swaps. The bill would give authority to federal financial regulators, including bank, securities and commodities regulators, to oversee and regulate all types of swap agreements, including credit default, commodity, equity, interest rate, and foreign currency swaps. Those regulators could no longer use as an excuse for not regulating swaps the prohibitions which exist in current law. The bill uses the same definition of swaps that is used in current law to prohibit swaps regulation, and would authorize federal oversight and regulation of all exchange-traded and over-the-counter swap agreements, without exception.
Require Consistent Treatment of Swaps. The bill does not require federal regulators to regulate swap agreements -- it merely authorizes such regulation and removes the statutory barriers in place since 2000. Nor does the bill provide any direction to federal regulators on how to regulate swaps other than to require them to consult, work, and cooperate with each other to promote consistency in the treatment of swap agreements.
Establish Interim Authority. By removing existing statutory prohibitions and providing federal financial regulators with authority to oversee and regulate swaps, the bill would eliminate harmful statutory barriers, give regulators immediate interim authority over multi-trillion-dollar swaps markets, and clear the way for more specific swaps requirements in subsequent comprehensive financial reform legislation later this year.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Senator Collins calls for tougher punishment for pirates
The Senate Armed Services Committee today heard testimony on efforts to combat piracy on the high seas. The hearing comes less than a month after Captain Richard Phillips was taken hostage by Somali pirates who tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama.
U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Armed Services Committee, called for stronger anti-piracy policies and tougher penalties for those who are caught and convicted of piracy.
“Very few of these pirates have actually been brought to justice,” said Senator Collins. “As long as they’re being paid off and there’s little risk of being caught and prosecuted, this activity is going to continue.”
As the Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Collins has discussed U.S. military and anti-piracy efforts with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and with the Chief of Naval Operations. She has called for a collective effort, including a coordinated international naval presence and enhanced security efforts by the commercial shipping industry, to help achieve a long-term solution to this problem.
Today, the Armed Services Committee heard testimony from Michèle Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Vice Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., USN, Director for Strategic Plans and Policy Joint Chiefs of Staff; Ambassador Stephen D. Mull, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; and James Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration,
Collins, Snowe pursue defense, other projects for Maine
from the Portland Press Herald:
Read more >>
Maine's U.S. senators are seeking about $7 billion in funding for defense-related projects in Maine, including two types of aircraft that were not requested by the Defense Department.
Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins propose spending $3.6 billion to build 15 more C-17 Globemaster III military transports and $2.8 billion to build 16 more F-22 Raptor fighter jets. Both planes have engines that are built by Pratt & Whitney, which has a parts manufacturing plant in North Berwick that employs about 1,300 people.
Read more >>
Monday, May 4, 2009
USAToday: Senators urge more aggressive swine flu screening
from USAToday:
Senior senators criticized the Homeland Security Department on Wednesday, saying it was not doing enough to prevent people infected with swine flu from entering the United States.
Lawmakers at a Capitol Hill hearing urged Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to take stronger steps than those now being used by Customs and Border Protection, who look for people who appear sick as they enter the USA.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, questioned the effectiveness of the observation. She suggested the department join six countries, including Japan and Thailand, that recently started using thermal cameras at entry points to spot people with a fever.
"It's very difficult for officials at the border, who are not medically trained, to do this kind of selection process or surveillance," Collins said. "Other countries are being far more aggressive in their screening."
Read more >>
Bath Iron Works awarded contract for next littoral combat ship
Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today announced that the U.S. Navy has awarded a Bath Iron Works-led team a contract to assist in the construction of the Littoral Combat Ship Coronado (LCS-4). According to the Navy, the contract allows General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works to compete for a contract for work on up to three additional LCS ships.
“This funding is welcome news for the skilled workers at Bath Iron Works,” said Senator Collins. “BIW continues to prove that it is a valuable asset to our national security and I will continue to work closely with the Navy to help ensure that it continues to be awarded such valuable contracts including Littoral Combat Ships.”
The contract is expected to support jobs for a Bath Iron Works-led team of more than 100 people. Work on this ship, which is expected to be conducted in various locations including Bath and Mobile, Alabama, should be completed by June 2012.
Last month, Senator Collins announced that the Navy has decided that BIW will build the complete set of three next-generation Zumwalt-class destroyers.
“This funding is welcome news for the skilled workers at Bath Iron Works,” said Senator Collins. “BIW continues to prove that it is a valuable asset to our national security and I will continue to work closely with the Navy to help ensure that it continues to be awarded such valuable contracts including Littoral Combat Ships.”
The contract is expected to support jobs for a Bath Iron Works-led team of more than 100 people. Work on this ship, which is expected to be conducted in various locations including Bath and Mobile, Alabama, should be completed by June 2012.
Last month, Senator Collins announced that the Navy has decided that BIW will build the complete set of three next-generation Zumwalt-class destroyers.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Photos from Czech Republic
Entering the Foreign Ministry with Senator Levin and Deputy Foreign Minister Jan Kohout:
Meeting with CSSD Party Chairman:
Meeting with Deputy Minister of Defense Martin Bartak at Czech Ministry of Defense:
With Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Vondra:
Meeting with CSSD Party Chairman:
Meeting with Deputy Minister of Defense Martin Bartak at Czech Ministry of Defense:
With Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Vondra:
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Photos from Warsaw
At the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw with Betsy Dorman Taylor (right) from South Portland and Linda White Szczedanska from Caribou (left), who are stationed there:
With Deputy Head of Poland's National Security Bureau, Witold Waszczykowski:
With Deputy Head of Poland's National Security Bureau, Witold Waszczykowski:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Senator Collins welcomes Coast Guard Commandant to Maine
Senator Collins welcomed USCG Commandant Admiral Thad W. Allen to Maine on Tuesday. They toured Bath Iron Works, Hodgon Defense Composites in Boothbay, and the Coast Guard Station in Rockland.
The video below is from their departure at Knox County Regional Airport in Owls Head, in a Coast Guard HH60J Jayhawk helicopter.
The video below is from their departure at Knox County Regional Airport in Owls Head, in a Coast Guard HH60J Jayhawk helicopter.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Senator Collins' address to Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs
Senator Collins was the guest lecturer at the biannual Goldfarb Lecture at Colby College on Sunday. The following is a transcript of her lecture, entitled "Policy Making at the Outset of the Obama Administration” :
There are many ways to measure the value of Bill Goldfarb’s generosity and commitment. This event, which brings together students, alumni, faculty, and the community, is one of the best measures.
I am honored to be here at Colby College. I feel a connection to this great bastion of liberal arts in part because of my strong family ties here. My great aunt, known to her fellow students as Clara Collins, graduated at the top of her class in 1914. I keep imaging what it must have been like for her, a girl of 17 in that era, to leave her hometown of Caribou on her own to travel by train to Colby, determined to get a college education. When times were tough and the money ran out, Clara left Colby for a year to work so that she could afford to return to complete her education.
While that is well before the time of all of you here tonight, you may know of her today due to the Clara Piper Professorship and Research Fund. This effort supports scholars in international relations and environmental studies and was established by her son, Wilson Piper, class of ’39, a life Colby trustee and a stalwart supporter of this outstanding college.
My Colby connection also extends to my work in the Senate. I have had several outstanding interns from Colby, and I would like to mention two here tonight. Sarah Whitfield and Megan Dean have served in my state offices and in Washington. Their drive, energy, and commitment exemplify the great Colby traditions of excellence and of service.
And, we have another connection. Colby College is not the only place known simply as “The Hill.” As it happens, I work at another one. So, from Capitol Hill to Mayflower Hill, I guess you could say it’s all downhill from here.
Interestingly, my workplace has a local newspaper named “The Hill,” much like yours here on campus. On January 27th, just one week after the inauguration of President Obama, the “Hill” in Washington ran a front-page story with this headline: “Democrats, Republicans Clash Over Meaning of Bipartisanship.”
The body of the story clearly states the real issue: too often, the meaning of bipartisanship doesn’t depend on your approach to governing, but on whether your party is in the majority or minority.
This sliding definition is not a good thing. Bipartisanship is a principle, and principles do not change according to circumstance. Just as we cannot claim the virtue of honesty if we tell the truth only when it is easy, we cannot call for bipartisanship but really mean that it requires the other side to give in.
I have been in both the majority and the minority. I have worked with Republican and Democratic presidents. I know that bipartisanship is more than a convenience, a nicety, or a clever political tactic. It is essential to solving the major challenges of our era and to restoring the public’s confidence in government.
At the time of President Obama’s inauguration, there was much commentary on the peaceful transfer of power after a heated and contentious campaign. This was nothing new in January of 2009, but it is always a marvel. It is a unifying thread that runs through our nation’s history. It is testament to the wisdom of the founders, to the quality of our candidates, and, above all, to the character of the American people.
These peaceful transitions rely upon a principle that is the foundation of American democratic institutions – that the valid concerns, beliefs, and solutions offered by one party will not be utterly dismissed should that party go from the majority to the minority. A candidate who wins with 53 percent of the vote will not succeed by ignoring or disrespecting the 47 percent of citizens who voted the other way. Our tradition of peaceful transitions usually ensures that political defeat does not mean political exile.
Unlike the European democracies, we don’t have a parliamentary system. We have representative government and a Constitution that ensures that Senate has a different role from the House.
The Senate rules, when followed and not circumvented, are intended to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected. That is why 60 votes are generally required to pass major legislation. It is why the Senate so often operates by unanimous consent on less controversial measures and reaches unanimous consent agreements to structure the debate and amendments on more significant bills.
The Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to protect the minority viewpoint as well as to be a check on the House. James Madison wrote in 1787 that the Senate is to proceed “with more coolness, with more system, and more wisdom, than the popular branch.” My colleagues are fond of a story about a discussion between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson asked Washington why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” asked Washington. “To cool it,” said Jefferson. “Even so,” responded Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
The cooling impact of bipartisanship is, therefore, much more common in the Senate than in the House due to the differences in their structures, rules, and traditions.
Given the question that Professor Maisel raised in his recent column, which I will discuss shortly, I want to make clear my view that bipartisanship is not just an end result measured by the roll-call vote. It is a process of accommodating minority views, of trying to achieve a consensus, of searching for common ground or at least common goals. The degree to which the minority voice is heard in crafting legislation is crucial. That involvement may not be as readily apparent as a vote tally, but it is essential if the vision of the Founding Fathers is to be realized.
Too often today, bipartisanship is mischaracterized as weakness, as simply going along to get along. Believe me, as one who has forged a reputation for bipartisanship during more than 12 years in the Senate, it is hard work and it takes a thick skin. It is far easier to stake out a position early on and refuse to budge than it is to dig into the issues and find some common ground.
At the heart of bipartisanship is a discipline that is at the heart of a Colby education – independent thinking.
In the Senate, independent thought means looking at issues and evaluating their merits rather than viewing every bill through a partisan political lens. It is a desire to actually get things done, to make progress, to put solving problems above personal credit or comfort. That doesn’t mean abandoning one’s principles, but it does mean not obstructing a bill simply to score political points. The result of independent thinking is that there will be times when I support the President’s proposals and times when I oppose them. I won’t be an automatic vote for either side.
My involvement in leading a successful bipartisan effort to craft an economic stimulus package to boost our troubled economy provides a timely example. Let me spend some time talking about why I decided to work with the President in writing the stimulus bill and how my involvement reflects the approach I take to governing.
Professor Maisel’s recent column on bipartisanship and the stimulus legislation offers a useful framework for this discussion. Professional Maisel raised two questions. First, he asked, can a process be considered bipartisan if it has the support of only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House? Second, should the quality of legislation be judged by whether it receives bipartisan support?
Let me start with the first question, which has generated much debate. In the House, the process was indeed not bipartisan because Speaker Nancy Pelosi completely shut out the House Republican members. But in the Senate, that was not the case. Republican Senators were not shut out. Indeed, the final tally is somewhat misleading because it does not reflect the broader input from Republican Senators who influenced the content of the bill.
I led the effort to negotiate an improved Senate version of the stimulus legislation because I concluded both that the President was right that our economy needed a stimulus bill and that Speaker Pelosi was wrong in shutting out the Republicans, a process that resulted in a bloated bill festooned with unnecessary spending that had nothing to do with boosting the economy. I also strongly believed that the minority party should have a seat at the table.
My determination to craft and pass an economic recovery bill began with recognizing that the current economic crisis is the most severe since the Great Depression.
On Friday, yet another Maine mill, this one a blanket factory in Biddeford, announced that it was closing its doors. Every week brings another wave of layoffs and plant idlings in our State. Tracking the national statistics, Maine lost nearly 12,000 jobs in 2008, with roughly a quarter of those losses coming just in December. More recently, the national unemployment rate reached 8.5 percent, the highest in 25 years. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans lost more than $11 trillion in wealth last year. Many of us have seen our retirement accounts drop in value by 30 percent.
Behind every number is a hard-working employee out of a job, a family facing an uncertain future, and a community under stress. The collapse of the housing market, the unraveling of our nation’s financial institutions, and the evaporation of trillions of dollars that have been invested in the stock market and retirement funds have caused incalculable harm in every community. Across America, citizens have had to delay their retirement plans because they no longer have the nest egg for which they worked so hard.
And the repercussions go far beyond individual finances. The economic crisis stalls necessary improvements in infrastructure, from transportation to environmental protection. It threatens the existence of community hospitals and the opportunity for a college education for low-income students. It freezes business investments that would create much-needed jobs in our communities.
The wide-ranging negative consequences of the economic crisis require a comprehensive remedy, and I was convinced -- I am convinced -- that an economic stimulus bill needed to be part of the solution. But not just any stimulus bill would do. I was opposed to the House-passed bill and made clear that I would vote against it. That declaration, by the way, prompted the Democrats in the Senate to realize that they could not adopt the Pelosi approach in the Senate if they wanted to get a bill passed. Despite my opposition to the House bill, I felt that Congress had a responsibility to work together to achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending programs.
The House bill and the first version of the Senate economic stimulus bill were far too expensive and bloated with unnecessary spending for pet projects. The bills had become Christmas trees upon which members hang their favorite programs without regard to whether or not the spending belonged in an economic stimulus bill. While there was some spending that did not belong in ANY bill, some of the provisions were worthwhile, but should have had to compete in the regular appropriations process.
I needed a bipartisan team to tackle the legislation. So I joined forces with Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, and together we convened a group of about 20 Senators, centrists from both sides of the aisle.
We were determined to scrub the bill of unnecessary expenditures and boost its investment in infrastructure, a proven job creator. There were three questions that we applied:
Would it help boost our economy?
Would it create or save jobs?
Would it put money in the pockets of consumers?
Throughout the negotiations, the President was also deeply involved. He invited several of us for separate meetings with him at the White House. I have been to the Oval Office many times for meetings with President Bush and President Clinton, but this meeting was entirely different. For a half hour, it was just President Obama and I talking one-on-one about the bill.
I handed him a two-page list of my initial recommendations which totaled about $655 billion. He told me that he felt that a package of that size would be too small to “jolt” the economy and emphasized the depth of the economic crisis, but he did not dispute my assertion that the House bill was larded with wasteful, ineffective, costly spending. In response to his request that I work with his Administration, I told him of the bipartisan group of centrists Senators who were working to scrub the House bill.
Our group continued to negotiate and drafted an amendment known as the Collins-Nelson amendment that pared $110 billion from the bill bringing it to a total of $780 billion and making it far more targeted with robust investments in transportation infrastructure, which would put people to work, tax relief to help middle-income families, and funding for unfunded federal mandates that burden state and local governments. We got the compromise through the Senate.
Then the conference negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate bills began. They were extremely difficult and lasted deep into the night, day after day. They started with a completely inadequate offer by the Senate Democratic Leader that almost caused the negotiations to collapse and caused three of the Republican Senators who had been involved in the negotiations to walk away. Then the White House chief of staff became involved, and the negotiations become serious, albeit still extremely difficult.
In the end, we settled on a $787 billion bill that is about 36 percent tax cuts and 64 percent spending. It was endorsed by both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, something that is rare indeed.
As many of my Republican friends here tonight will attest, I have been criticized by some in my party for working with the President rather than just voting no so that a filibuster could kill the bill. “Just say no” is a wonderful slogan when it comes to using drugs, but it falls far short to being a solution to our current crisis.
The bill obviously is not what I would have written if I could have drafted the bill myself, but it represented essential progress on the road to recovery. Although far from perfect, the bill provides tax relief, creates jobs, and addresses the dire economic crisis our nation faces.
Although, in the end, the legislation gained only three Republican votes in the Senate, our version was developed with considerable minority input. There were six, not just three, Republican Senators who were deeply involved in the negotiations until the very last stage, as well as several others who called me throughout the conference negotiations to ask that I make sure certain provisions were included in the final bill.
So my answer to Sandy Maisel’s first question is yes, a bill can be considered bipartisan even if the roll call vote seems to suggest that it barely meets that threshold as long as Republicans are not shut out of the process as they were in the House.
On this issue, I believed that the President was on the right track, and so I worked closely with him. I will continue to support the president when I believe he is right. I have, and will, oppose him, however, when I believe he is wrong.
The most recent example of that opposition is the President’s budget. I voted against his budget because the drastic increases to the public debt it would bring are not sustainable and pose a threat to the basic health of our economy.
Throughout our nation’s history, each generation has made sacrifices to better the lives of the next generation. My fundamental concern with the President’s budget is that it would do the opposite. It asks the next generation – students, your generation -- to sacrifice for us.
The President’s budget projects deficits over the next decade of 9.3 TRILLION dollars. Now I have indicated that I believe spending more money this year and next to help turn around our economy makes sense, but this level of deficit spending, year after year, jeopardizes our long-term economic health and imposes an enormous burden on generations to come.
The President’s budget doubles the national debt in five years and nearly triples it in 10, creating more debt than under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. By 2019, our debt would reach 82 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. This crushing debt would make our nation even more dependent on China for financing and threatens the value of our currency and our financial security.
I would not have devoted my life to public service if I did not believe that government has an important role to play in building a fair, just, and prosperous society. But I also recognize the dangers of too big a government, of excessive debt, and of crushing tax burdens.
Let me conclude by answering the second question posed by Professor Maisel: “Should the quality of legislation be judged by whether it receives bipartisan support?” Generally, my answer to question is also “yes.” In many cases, whether a bill receives support from both Democrats and Republicans is a pretty good barometer of its quality.” If a bill cannot attract a single vote from across the aisle, then it may well be of questionable merit, have been jammed through without careful consideration, or be an attempt to score partisan political points rather than crafted to address an issue.
I doubt that anyone in this room could turn to the person sitting next to you and find that you agree on every single political issue even if you are in the same political party. To expect members of the Senate to toe the party line rather than to exercise independent judgment guided by political principles is a recipe for gridlock and division at a time when our nation needs progress and unity.
The challenges facing our nation are great. We will meet these challenges only by embracing the traditions of mutual respect, compromise, and reconciliation that are the true definition of bipartisanship and the foundation of our uniquely American democracy.
There are many ways to measure the value of Bill Goldfarb’s generosity and commitment. This event, which brings together students, alumni, faculty, and the community, is one of the best measures.
I am honored to be here at Colby College. I feel a connection to this great bastion of liberal arts in part because of my strong family ties here. My great aunt, known to her fellow students as Clara Collins, graduated at the top of her class in 1914. I keep imaging what it must have been like for her, a girl of 17 in that era, to leave her hometown of Caribou on her own to travel by train to Colby, determined to get a college education. When times were tough and the money ran out, Clara left Colby for a year to work so that she could afford to return to complete her education.
While that is well before the time of all of you here tonight, you may know of her today due to the Clara Piper Professorship and Research Fund. This effort supports scholars in international relations and environmental studies and was established by her son, Wilson Piper, class of ’39, a life Colby trustee and a stalwart supporter of this outstanding college.
My Colby connection also extends to my work in the Senate. I have had several outstanding interns from Colby, and I would like to mention two here tonight. Sarah Whitfield and Megan Dean have served in my state offices and in Washington. Their drive, energy, and commitment exemplify the great Colby traditions of excellence and of service.
And, we have another connection. Colby College is not the only place known simply as “The Hill.” As it happens, I work at another one. So, from Capitol Hill to Mayflower Hill, I guess you could say it’s all downhill from here.
Interestingly, my workplace has a local newspaper named “The Hill,” much like yours here on campus. On January 27th, just one week after the inauguration of President Obama, the “Hill” in Washington ran a front-page story with this headline: “Democrats, Republicans Clash Over Meaning of Bipartisanship.”
The body of the story clearly states the real issue: too often, the meaning of bipartisanship doesn’t depend on your approach to governing, but on whether your party is in the majority or minority.
This sliding definition is not a good thing. Bipartisanship is a principle, and principles do not change according to circumstance. Just as we cannot claim the virtue of honesty if we tell the truth only when it is easy, we cannot call for bipartisanship but really mean that it requires the other side to give in.
I have been in both the majority and the minority. I have worked with Republican and Democratic presidents. I know that bipartisanship is more than a convenience, a nicety, or a clever political tactic. It is essential to solving the major challenges of our era and to restoring the public’s confidence in government.
At the time of President Obama’s inauguration, there was much commentary on the peaceful transfer of power after a heated and contentious campaign. This was nothing new in January of 2009, but it is always a marvel. It is a unifying thread that runs through our nation’s history. It is testament to the wisdom of the founders, to the quality of our candidates, and, above all, to the character of the American people.
These peaceful transitions rely upon a principle that is the foundation of American democratic institutions – that the valid concerns, beliefs, and solutions offered by one party will not be utterly dismissed should that party go from the majority to the minority. A candidate who wins with 53 percent of the vote will not succeed by ignoring or disrespecting the 47 percent of citizens who voted the other way. Our tradition of peaceful transitions usually ensures that political defeat does not mean political exile.
Unlike the European democracies, we don’t have a parliamentary system. We have representative government and a Constitution that ensures that Senate has a different role from the House.
The Senate rules, when followed and not circumvented, are intended to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected. That is why 60 votes are generally required to pass major legislation. It is why the Senate so often operates by unanimous consent on less controversial measures and reaches unanimous consent agreements to structure the debate and amendments on more significant bills.
The Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to protect the minority viewpoint as well as to be a check on the House. James Madison wrote in 1787 that the Senate is to proceed “with more coolness, with more system, and more wisdom, than the popular branch.” My colleagues are fond of a story about a discussion between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who was in France during the Constitutional Convention. Upon his return, Jefferson asked Washington why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” asked Washington. “To cool it,” said Jefferson. “Even so,” responded Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
The cooling impact of bipartisanship is, therefore, much more common in the Senate than in the House due to the differences in their structures, rules, and traditions.
Given the question that Professor Maisel raised in his recent column, which I will discuss shortly, I want to make clear my view that bipartisanship is not just an end result measured by the roll-call vote. It is a process of accommodating minority views, of trying to achieve a consensus, of searching for common ground or at least common goals. The degree to which the minority voice is heard in crafting legislation is crucial. That involvement may not be as readily apparent as a vote tally, but it is essential if the vision of the Founding Fathers is to be realized.
Too often today, bipartisanship is mischaracterized as weakness, as simply going along to get along. Believe me, as one who has forged a reputation for bipartisanship during more than 12 years in the Senate, it is hard work and it takes a thick skin. It is far easier to stake out a position early on and refuse to budge than it is to dig into the issues and find some common ground.
At the heart of bipartisanship is a discipline that is at the heart of a Colby education – independent thinking.
In the Senate, independent thought means looking at issues and evaluating their merits rather than viewing every bill through a partisan political lens. It is a desire to actually get things done, to make progress, to put solving problems above personal credit or comfort. That doesn’t mean abandoning one’s principles, but it does mean not obstructing a bill simply to score political points. The result of independent thinking is that there will be times when I support the President’s proposals and times when I oppose them. I won’t be an automatic vote for either side.
My involvement in leading a successful bipartisan effort to craft an economic stimulus package to boost our troubled economy provides a timely example. Let me spend some time talking about why I decided to work with the President in writing the stimulus bill and how my involvement reflects the approach I take to governing.
Professor Maisel’s recent column on bipartisanship and the stimulus legislation offers a useful framework for this discussion. Professional Maisel raised two questions. First, he asked, can a process be considered bipartisan if it has the support of only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House? Second, should the quality of legislation be judged by whether it receives bipartisan support?
Let me start with the first question, which has generated much debate. In the House, the process was indeed not bipartisan because Speaker Nancy Pelosi completely shut out the House Republican members. But in the Senate, that was not the case. Republican Senators were not shut out. Indeed, the final tally is somewhat misleading because it does not reflect the broader input from Republican Senators who influenced the content of the bill.
I led the effort to negotiate an improved Senate version of the stimulus legislation because I concluded both that the President was right that our economy needed a stimulus bill and that Speaker Pelosi was wrong in shutting out the Republicans, a process that resulted in a bloated bill festooned with unnecessary spending that had nothing to do with boosting the economy. I also strongly believed that the minority party should have a seat at the table.
My determination to craft and pass an economic recovery bill began with recognizing that the current economic crisis is the most severe since the Great Depression.
On Friday, yet another Maine mill, this one a blanket factory in Biddeford, announced that it was closing its doors. Every week brings another wave of layoffs and plant idlings in our State. Tracking the national statistics, Maine lost nearly 12,000 jobs in 2008, with roughly a quarter of those losses coming just in December. More recently, the national unemployment rate reached 8.5 percent, the highest in 25 years. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans lost more than $11 trillion in wealth last year. Many of us have seen our retirement accounts drop in value by 30 percent.
Behind every number is a hard-working employee out of a job, a family facing an uncertain future, and a community under stress. The collapse of the housing market, the unraveling of our nation’s financial institutions, and the evaporation of trillions of dollars that have been invested in the stock market and retirement funds have caused incalculable harm in every community. Across America, citizens have had to delay their retirement plans because they no longer have the nest egg for which they worked so hard.
And the repercussions go far beyond individual finances. The economic crisis stalls necessary improvements in infrastructure, from transportation to environmental protection. It threatens the existence of community hospitals and the opportunity for a college education for low-income students. It freezes business investments that would create much-needed jobs in our communities.
The wide-ranging negative consequences of the economic crisis require a comprehensive remedy, and I was convinced -- I am convinced -- that an economic stimulus bill needed to be part of the solution. But not just any stimulus bill would do. I was opposed to the House-passed bill and made clear that I would vote against it. That declaration, by the way, prompted the Democrats in the Senate to realize that they could not adopt the Pelosi approach in the Senate if they wanted to get a bill passed. Despite my opposition to the House bill, I felt that Congress had a responsibility to work together to achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending programs.
The House bill and the first version of the Senate economic stimulus bill were far too expensive and bloated with unnecessary spending for pet projects. The bills had become Christmas trees upon which members hang their favorite programs without regard to whether or not the spending belonged in an economic stimulus bill. While there was some spending that did not belong in ANY bill, some of the provisions were worthwhile, but should have had to compete in the regular appropriations process.
I needed a bipartisan team to tackle the legislation. So I joined forces with Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, and together we convened a group of about 20 Senators, centrists from both sides of the aisle.
We were determined to scrub the bill of unnecessary expenditures and boost its investment in infrastructure, a proven job creator. There were three questions that we applied:
Would it help boost our economy?
Would it create or save jobs?
Would it put money in the pockets of consumers?
Throughout the negotiations, the President was also deeply involved. He invited several of us for separate meetings with him at the White House. I have been to the Oval Office many times for meetings with President Bush and President Clinton, but this meeting was entirely different. For a half hour, it was just President Obama and I talking one-on-one about the bill.
I handed him a two-page list of my initial recommendations which totaled about $655 billion. He told me that he felt that a package of that size would be too small to “jolt” the economy and emphasized the depth of the economic crisis, but he did not dispute my assertion that the House bill was larded with wasteful, ineffective, costly spending. In response to his request that I work with his Administration, I told him of the bipartisan group of centrists Senators who were working to scrub the House bill.
Our group continued to negotiate and drafted an amendment known as the Collins-Nelson amendment that pared $110 billion from the bill bringing it to a total of $780 billion and making it far more targeted with robust investments in transportation infrastructure, which would put people to work, tax relief to help middle-income families, and funding for unfunded federal mandates that burden state and local governments. We got the compromise through the Senate.
Then the conference negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate bills began. They were extremely difficult and lasted deep into the night, day after day. They started with a completely inadequate offer by the Senate Democratic Leader that almost caused the negotiations to collapse and caused three of the Republican Senators who had been involved in the negotiations to walk away. Then the White House chief of staff became involved, and the negotiations become serious, albeit still extremely difficult.
In the end, we settled on a $787 billion bill that is about 36 percent tax cuts and 64 percent spending. It was endorsed by both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, something that is rare indeed.
As many of my Republican friends here tonight will attest, I have been criticized by some in my party for working with the President rather than just voting no so that a filibuster could kill the bill. “Just say no” is a wonderful slogan when it comes to using drugs, but it falls far short to being a solution to our current crisis.
The bill obviously is not what I would have written if I could have drafted the bill myself, but it represented essential progress on the road to recovery. Although far from perfect, the bill provides tax relief, creates jobs, and addresses the dire economic crisis our nation faces.
Although, in the end, the legislation gained only three Republican votes in the Senate, our version was developed with considerable minority input. There were six, not just three, Republican Senators who were deeply involved in the negotiations until the very last stage, as well as several others who called me throughout the conference negotiations to ask that I make sure certain provisions were included in the final bill.
So my answer to Sandy Maisel’s first question is yes, a bill can be considered bipartisan even if the roll call vote seems to suggest that it barely meets that threshold as long as Republicans are not shut out of the process as they were in the House.
On this issue, I believed that the President was on the right track, and so I worked closely with him. I will continue to support the president when I believe he is right. I have, and will, oppose him, however, when I believe he is wrong.
The most recent example of that opposition is the President’s budget. I voted against his budget because the drastic increases to the public debt it would bring are not sustainable and pose a threat to the basic health of our economy.
Throughout our nation’s history, each generation has made sacrifices to better the lives of the next generation. My fundamental concern with the President’s budget is that it would do the opposite. It asks the next generation – students, your generation -- to sacrifice for us.
The President’s budget projects deficits over the next decade of 9.3 TRILLION dollars. Now I have indicated that I believe spending more money this year and next to help turn around our economy makes sense, but this level of deficit spending, year after year, jeopardizes our long-term economic health and imposes an enormous burden on generations to come.
The President’s budget doubles the national debt in five years and nearly triples it in 10, creating more debt than under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. By 2019, our debt would reach 82 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. This crushing debt would make our nation even more dependent on China for financing and threatens the value of our currency and our financial security.
I would not have devoted my life to public service if I did not believe that government has an important role to play in building a fair, just, and prosperous society. But I also recognize the dangers of too big a government, of excessive debt, and of crushing tax burdens.
Let me conclude by answering the second question posed by Professor Maisel: “Should the quality of legislation be judged by whether it receives bipartisan support?” Generally, my answer to question is also “yes.” In many cases, whether a bill receives support from both Democrats and Republicans is a pretty good barometer of its quality.” If a bill cannot attract a single vote from across the aisle, then it may well be of questionable merit, have been jammed through without careful consideration, or be an attempt to score partisan political points rather than crafted to address an issue.
I doubt that anyone in this room could turn to the person sitting next to you and find that you agree on every single political issue even if you are in the same political party. To expect members of the Senate to toe the party line rather than to exercise independent judgment guided by political principles is a recipe for gridlock and division at a time when our nation needs progress and unity.
The challenges facing our nation are great. We will meet these challenges only by embracing the traditions of mutual respect, compromise, and reconciliation that are the true definition of bipartisanship and the foundation of our uniquely American democracy.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Senator Collins statement on 2010 Budget Resolution
U.S. Senator Susan Collins released this statement following her vote against the 2010 Budget Resolution.
“I voted against the budget resolution because it projects an enormous increase in spending and would double the public debt in five years. This puts us on a path that could result in adding approximately $1 trillion to the debt each year for the next decade, tripling the public debt in ten years, and producing deficits totaling $9.2 trillion. As a result, our debt would exceed 80 percent of GDP by 2019—the highest level since World War II. In addition, it would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion over the same period.
"While deficit spending is acceptable at a time when our troubled economy needs a boost, the problem with this budget is that it would lead to huge deficits year after year throughout the next decade. That simply is not sustainable and poses a threat to our economy.
“The budget resolution does contain several important provisions that I do support, including an amendment that I authored with Senator Joe Lieberman to provide an additional $550 million for federal agents, investigators, and resources to significantly bolster U.S. efforts to fight violence caused by Mexican drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexican border.”
“I voted against the budget resolution because it projects an enormous increase in spending and would double the public debt in five years. This puts us on a path that could result in adding approximately $1 trillion to the debt each year for the next decade, tripling the public debt in ten years, and producing deficits totaling $9.2 trillion. As a result, our debt would exceed 80 percent of GDP by 2019—the highest level since World War II. In addition, it would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion over the same period.
"While deficit spending is acceptable at a time when our troubled economy needs a boost, the problem with this budget is that it would lead to huge deficits year after year throughout the next decade. That simply is not sustainable and poses a threat to our economy.
“The budget resolution does contain several important provisions that I do support, including an amendment that I authored with Senator Joe Lieberman to provide an additional $550 million for federal agents, investigators, and resources to significantly bolster U.S. efforts to fight violence caused by Mexican drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexican border.”
Senator Collins introduces "Caring for an Aging America Act"
U.S. Senator Susan Collins recently introduced the Caring for an Aging America Act, legislation to ensure the healthcare workforce is prepared to meet the needs of our growing population of older Americans. The legislation was cosponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
“Studies show that more than one quarter of Maine’s population will be over the age of 65 by the year 2030,” said Senator Collins. “Our health care system is already struggling to find and retain qualified workers to meet this growing demand. The Caring for an Aging America Act will help recruit, train, and keep health care workers who are dedicated to providing quality health care for this aging population.”
The Caring for an Aging America Act would provide $130 million in federal funding over five years to attract and retain health care professionals and direct-care workers by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities.
Specifically, this legislation would:
• Establish the Geriatric and Gerontology Loan Repayment Program for physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, psychologists, and social workers who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology and agree to provide two years of full-time clinical practice and service to older adults.
• Expand the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program to include registered nurses who complete specialty training and provide nursing services to older adults in long-term care settings.
• Increase career advancement opportunities for nursing and direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services through the existing Career Ladders Grants Program.
• Create a panel to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and Congress on workforce issues related to health and long-term care for the aging population.
“Studies show that more than one quarter of Maine’s population will be over the age of 65 by the year 2030,” said Senator Collins. “Our health care system is already struggling to find and retain qualified workers to meet this growing demand. The Caring for an Aging America Act will help recruit, train, and keep health care workers who are dedicated to providing quality health care for this aging population.”
The Caring for an Aging America Act would provide $130 million in federal funding over five years to attract and retain health care professionals and direct-care workers by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities.
Specifically, this legislation would:
• Establish the Geriatric and Gerontology Loan Repayment Program for physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, psychologists, and social workers who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology and agree to provide two years of full-time clinical practice and service to older adults.
• Expand the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program to include registered nurses who complete specialty training and provide nursing services to older adults in long-term care settings.
• Increase career advancement opportunities for nursing and direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services through the existing Career Ladders Grants Program.
• Create a panel to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and Congress on workforce issues related to health and long-term care for the aging population.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Nearly $20 million in drinking water funding announced
Senator Collins today announced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will distribute $19,500,000 in federal Drinking Water State Funding to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
The funding is being distributed to Maine through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Senator Collins worked with a bipartisan group of senators to craft the legislation that became law in February.
The funding will be used to provide low interest loans for water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, non-point source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management.
Senator Collins released the following statement:
“Clean drinking water is vital to the health of any community. This funding will create jobs and help enable Maine’s communities to continue their ongoing work to make needed upgrades to the state’s aging public works infrastructure which will result in a safer, and cleaner, water system,” said Senator Collins.
The funding is being distributed to Maine through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Senator Collins worked with a bipartisan group of senators to craft the legislation that became law in February.
The funding will be used to provide low interest loans for water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, non-point source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management.
Senator Collins released the following statement:
“Clean drinking water is vital to the health of any community. This funding will create jobs and help enable Maine’s communities to continue their ongoing work to make needed upgrades to the state’s aging public works infrastructure which will result in a safer, and cleaner, water system,” said Senator Collins.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Senator Collins introduces legislation to stabilize and reform U.S. financial system
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, today introduced “The Financial System Stabilization and Reform Act (FSSRA) of 2009” to fundamentally restructure our nation’s outdated financial regulatory system to strengthen oversight and accountability.
“As a former Maine financial regulator, I believe financial regulatory reform is absolutely essential to restoring public confidence in our financial markets,” said Senator Collins. “America’s consumers, workers, savers, and investors deserve the protection of a new regulatory system that modernizes regulatory agencies, sets safety and soundness requirements for financial institutions to prevent excessive risk-taking, and improves oversight, accountability, and transparency. My legislation will fundamentally restructure our financial regulatory system to help rebuild the confidence of our citizens in our economy and restore stability to our financial markets.”
FSSRA calls for the creation of an independent Financial Stability Council (FSC), composed of representatives from existing federal financial regulators which now have the responsibility to oversee portions of the financial system. The FSC will serve as a “systemic-risk monitor,” and would maintain comprehensive oversight of potential systemic risks to the financial system. It would have the ability to propose changes to regulatory policy, working with existing federal regulatory agencies, when systemic risk could emerge due to regulatory gaps or the emergence of risky new financial products. The FSC would also have the authority to close regulatory “black holes” that pose a systemic risk when risky products or activities fall outside the current authority of federal financial regulators. The FSC would also have the authority to adopt rules that ensure financial institutions do not grow “too big to fail,” by imposing different capital requirements, raising risk premiums, or requiring a larger percentage of debt be held as long-term debt.
Additional provisions in the FSSA would:
• Close the credit default swaps loophole to ensure oversight of a financial instrument that contributed heavily to the current financial crisis and the downfall of AIG. This regulatory gap allowed systemic risk to build in our financial system without the oversight and transparency needed to prevent a collapse;• Impose safety and soundness requirements on new investment banks by requiring them to organize under the Bank Holding Company Act. Under the current system, investment bank firms such as the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were left unregulated with no agency given the authority to examine the full scope of their operations;• Merge the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and Office of the Comptroller Currency (OCC) to consolidate and reduce the number of banking regulators, improving the effectiveness of the entire system. This merger was recommended by many experts, and the Treasury Inspector General recently raised concerns about the objectivity and effectiveness of OTS;• Protect the rights of states to regulate the insurance industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
