Bipartisan amendments offered to Senate health care bill
Washington, D.C.-. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) today filed three bipartisan amendments to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” If adopted, the amendments will improve the Senate bill by doing more to hold down premium increases for all Americans while expanding health care choices for more Americans and their employers.
“At the end of the day, Americans don’t care if a health reform proposal originated with a Democrat or a Republican, what matters to them is that it works,” Senator Wyden said. “I’m proud to join forces with Senator Collins to offer common-sense amendments that will hold down premium costs and make health care more affordable for American families and their employers. As I have long said, the best way to hold down health care costs and make insurance companies accountable is to put Americans in the driver’s seat and empower them to pick the plan that best fits their needs.”
Senator Collins said; “Health care reform should give Americans more choices of affordable health insurance options. That is why I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Wyden on this bipartisan amendment that would help keep costs down and provide individuals, employers and employees with more health care choices.”
Senators Wyden and Collins are proposing as amendments to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” the following three amendments:
MORE CHOICES FOR EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS: While the current Senate legislation will eventually make it possible for employers to insure their workforce in the new health insurance exchanges, the legislation does not contain a mechanism to make it possible for employers to offer their workers the ability to choose any plan offered in the exchange. This Wyden-Collins amendment would correct that by making it possible for employers – who want to offer their employees the full range of choices in the exchange – to do just that while increasing competition in the new marketplace:
Under the amendment, any employer that sponsors a health plan would have the option to offer tax-free vouchers to its workers equal to the amount the employer contributes to its own health plan. Workers could then use that voucher to purchase the exchange plan that works best for them and their family. If a worker decides to purchase a less-expensive plan the worker would keep the savings as added income just as workers wanting to purchase more generous plans in the exchange will be able to pay the additional cost out of pocket. Whatever employers pay for vouchers will remain tax deductible for employers and tax free for employees; and while no employer will be required to offer vouchers under the new system, in order to encourage participation, employers who want to offer their employees tax-free vouchers will be given accelerated access to the new health insurance exchanges. Under the amendment, any employer offering its workers vouchers would have access to the exchange in 2015 rather than 2017, which is the schedule for employer access in the bill.
OFFERING MORE CHOICES IN THE EXCHANGE: This amendment will make it possible for individuals, who are not eligible for a subsidy, to purchase a catastrophic plan, regardless of age. Catastrophic plans will typically have much lower premiums than other plans offered through the exchange but subscribers will pay for most of their health care expenses “out-of pocket” up until they exceed their plan’s catastrophic limit.
Americans should have the choice to purchase more affordable coverage, if that is what works best for them. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, individuals up to the age of 30 are eligible to purchase these plans. The Wyden-Collins amendment will extend that option to individuals – not receiving government subsidies – over the age of 30. This amendment would give consumers more choice and help ensure that more people can purchase coverage that fits their needs and is affordable to them.
The amendment includes aggressive disclosure requirements that will require catastrophic subscribers to certify that they understand the terms of the coverage and know that they are purchasing the lowest level of coverage available.
III. HOLDING DOWN PREMIUMS FOR CONSUMERS: Starting in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impose an annual fee on insurance companies based on the number of premiums written each year. This amendment will modify that fee to create an incentive for insurers to hold down rates. So, for example, insurance companies that hold down premium increases will pay lower fees, while insurers who jack-up their premiums will pay much higher fees. Starting in 2010 the fee will be varied by as much as 50% based on how aggressively insurers control costs which will give them a strong incentive to hold the line on overhead, executive salaries, provider payments and inefficiency. As under the bill, the total amount of the annual fee will be $6.7 billion per year.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Major victory for Senator Collins' effort to lift federal truck weights in Maine
Senate- House conferees approve one-year pilot program
Collins fought to include one year project in final 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill
A Senate-House conference committee late tonight gave final approval to Senator Susan Collins’ provision to create a one-year pilot project that would exempt Maine’s highways from the 80,000 pound federal truck weight limit. Senator Collins, who is the only delegation member from Maine to serve on an Appropriations Committee, has championed this provision. This provision was not included in the original House-passed bill but Senator Collins, who was a member of the Conference Committee, fought hard to have it successfully included in the final Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill.
“Increasing federal truck weight limits on Maine’s interstates has always been one of my top priorities,” said Senator Collins. “A uniform truck weight limit would keep trucks on the interstates where they belong, rather than on the rural roads that pass through our small towns and villages. A one-year pilot project allowing heavier trucks on the interstates would permit an assessment of the impact of the safety, commerce and road wear and tear. I am delighted that I was able to convince my colleagues on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to allow this pilot project to move forward. I hope that both the House and Senate will give final approval to this bill as quickly as possible and it will be signed by the President.”
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Transportation first notified the State of Maine that it was in violation of federal vehicle weight requirements. Maine’s Congressional delegation has been working since then to change the law, which forces northbound trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds off Interstate 95 in Augusta. As a result, heavy trucks traveling I-95 to Houlton are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages, creating safety concerns.
Senator Collins first raised this issue in June during an Appropriations Committee hearing with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who pledged to help address this issue. Senator Collins then worked with her colleagues on the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to have her provision included in the FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.
The FY 2010 Transportation Appropriations conference report must now receive final approval from both the House and Senate. It would then be sent to the President for his signature. The House is scheduled to vote on Thursday.
Collins fought to include one year project in final 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill
A Senate-House conference committee late tonight gave final approval to Senator Susan Collins’ provision to create a one-year pilot project that would exempt Maine’s highways from the 80,000 pound federal truck weight limit. Senator Collins, who is the only delegation member from Maine to serve on an Appropriations Committee, has championed this provision. This provision was not included in the original House-passed bill but Senator Collins, who was a member of the Conference Committee, fought hard to have it successfully included in the final Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill.
“Increasing federal truck weight limits on Maine’s interstates has always been one of my top priorities,” said Senator Collins. “A uniform truck weight limit would keep trucks on the interstates where they belong, rather than on the rural roads that pass through our small towns and villages. A one-year pilot project allowing heavier trucks on the interstates would permit an assessment of the impact of the safety, commerce and road wear and tear. I am delighted that I was able to convince my colleagues on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to allow this pilot project to move forward. I hope that both the House and Senate will give final approval to this bill as quickly as possible and it will be signed by the President.”
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Transportation first notified the State of Maine that it was in violation of federal vehicle weight requirements. Maine’s Congressional delegation has been working since then to change the law, which forces northbound trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds off Interstate 95 in Augusta. As a result, heavy trucks traveling I-95 to Houlton are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages, creating safety concerns.
Senator Collins first raised this issue in June during an Appropriations Committee hearing with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who pledged to help address this issue. Senator Collins then worked with her colleagues on the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to have her provision included in the FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.
The FY 2010 Transportation Appropriations conference report must now receive final approval from both the House and Senate. It would then be sent to the President for his signature. The House is scheduled to vote on Thursday.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Health Care Reform Must Not Hurt Small Businesses
Weekly column by Senator Susan Collins
While the national unemployment rate has fallen ever so slightly to ten percent, the fact remains that far too many Americans are still without jobs, and their families continue to struggle during this economic crisis. Government at all levels must do everything possible to help revive the economy by creating and preserving jobs.
Small businesses remain our nation’s job-creation engine. Here in Maine, more than 97 percent of employers are small business, and nearly 120,000 Mainers work for firms with fewer than 20 employees. That is why I am so concerned about the effect the Senate health care bill will have on small businesses, and in turn, on jobs in our State and nation.
The rapidly escalating cost of health care has been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of our economy. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but many simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The cost is simply too high.
A small business owner in Maine recently e-mailed me to say that: “I just received our renewal proposals for our company. Of course, the plans are all up anywhere from 12 percent to 32 percent on the three plans that we offer. Each year, we increase the deductibles to try to keep premium increases to less than five percent, and this year is no exception.
“You are right when you say that we need to address the cost of health insurance, NOT create another vehicle to deliver the services. The current legislation, as I understand it, totally misses the mark.”
How does this bill help small businesses? On balance, it doesn't. This is the analysis of many, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the nation's leading small business association. In a statement on the health care bill, the NFIB says "this kind of reform is not what we need. “ “New taxes . . . new mandates . . . new entitlement programs . . . paid for on the backs of small business . . . equals disaster,” the NFIB says.
In short, as the title of the NFIB’s statement’s indicates, "The Senate Bill Fails Small Business."
Even where this proposal tries to help small business, it misses the mark. I support the providing tax credits for small businesses to help cover employee health insurance costs, but the credits for small business in the proposal are poorly structured.
Only businesses with no more than ten workers, paying an average of wage of $20,000, can get the maximum tax credit. If a business hires more workers, or pays higher salaries, its credit is phased-out. In other words, this bill discourages small businesses from adding jobs or raising pay. This just doesn’t make sense.
Small businesses want to provide health insurance to their employees as a way to attract and retain good employees. But they are far too often unable to do so because of the high cost.
Not only does this bill do little to address this problem, the bill makes matters worse by imposing $28 billion in new taxes levied on employers with more than 50 employees that cannot afford to offer health insurance.
There is no question that our health care system is broken and in need of reform. I continue to believe that the American public would like to see a bipartisan bill that brings together the best ideas that achieves the goal of lower health care costs, higher value, and better outcomes. That is why I am continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on bipartisan amendments that would make tax credits available to more businesses while eliminating some of the disincentives to hire more workers, as the current bill would do.
Along with Senator Joe Lieberman, I have introduced a package of amendments that would help to constrain costs by improving the health care delivery system. For example, our proposal would penalize hospitals that don’t work to reduce preventable infections, which results in a cost each year of $30 billion to our health care system, not to mention much avoidable suffering. We are also working to create more transparency and more incentives for better health care outcomes, which will in turn, help lower health care costs.
It is critical that the Senate keep working toward an alternative health care reform proposal that reduces health care costs, improves outcomes, and equally important, enhances, not hinders the ability of small businesses to succeed.
While the national unemployment rate has fallen ever so slightly to ten percent, the fact remains that far too many Americans are still without jobs, and their families continue to struggle during this economic crisis. Government at all levels must do everything possible to help revive the economy by creating and preserving jobs.
Small businesses remain our nation’s job-creation engine. Here in Maine, more than 97 percent of employers are small business, and nearly 120,000 Mainers work for firms with fewer than 20 employees. That is why I am so concerned about the effect the Senate health care bill will have on small businesses, and in turn, on jobs in our State and nation.
The rapidly escalating cost of health care has been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of our economy. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but many simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases in their health insurance premiums year after year. The cost is simply too high.
A small business owner in Maine recently e-mailed me to say that: “I just received our renewal proposals for our company. Of course, the plans are all up anywhere from 12 percent to 32 percent on the three plans that we offer. Each year, we increase the deductibles to try to keep premium increases to less than five percent, and this year is no exception.
“You are right when you say that we need to address the cost of health insurance, NOT create another vehicle to deliver the services. The current legislation, as I understand it, totally misses the mark.”
How does this bill help small businesses? On balance, it doesn't. This is the analysis of many, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the nation's leading small business association. In a statement on the health care bill, the NFIB says "this kind of reform is not what we need. “ “New taxes . . . new mandates . . . new entitlement programs . . . paid for on the backs of small business . . . equals disaster,” the NFIB says.
In short, as the title of the NFIB’s statement’s indicates, "The Senate Bill Fails Small Business."
Even where this proposal tries to help small business, it misses the mark. I support the providing tax credits for small businesses to help cover employee health insurance costs, but the credits for small business in the proposal are poorly structured.
Only businesses with no more than ten workers, paying an average of wage of $20,000, can get the maximum tax credit. If a business hires more workers, or pays higher salaries, its credit is phased-out. In other words, this bill discourages small businesses from adding jobs or raising pay. This just doesn’t make sense.
Small businesses want to provide health insurance to their employees as a way to attract and retain good employees. But they are far too often unable to do so because of the high cost.
Not only does this bill do little to address this problem, the bill makes matters worse by imposing $28 billion in new taxes levied on employers with more than 50 employees that cannot afford to offer health insurance.
There is no question that our health care system is broken and in need of reform. I continue to believe that the American public would like to see a bipartisan bill that brings together the best ideas that achieves the goal of lower health care costs, higher value, and better outcomes. That is why I am continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on bipartisan amendments that would make tax credits available to more businesses while eliminating some of the disincentives to hire more workers, as the current bill would do.
Along with Senator Joe Lieberman, I have introduced a package of amendments that would help to constrain costs by improving the health care delivery system. For example, our proposal would penalize hospitals that don’t work to reduce preventable infections, which results in a cost each year of $30 billion to our health care system, not to mention much avoidable suffering. We are also working to create more transparency and more incentives for better health care outcomes, which will in turn, help lower health care costs.
It is critical that the Senate keep working toward an alternative health care reform proposal that reduces health care costs, improves outcomes, and equally important, enhances, not hinders the ability of small businesses to succeed.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Senator Collins questions Administration officials on Afghanistan plan
One day after President Obama announced plans to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Senator Susan Collins questioned Administration officials about the way forward. Senator Collins is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that, today, held the first Congressional oversight hearing on the President’s proposal.
Witnesses included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
Senator Collins, who has traveled to Afghanistan four times, most recently last August, asked Secretary Gates why the Administration feels it is critical to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan when al-Qaida currently has a presence in as many as 20 countries, including Yemen where an al-Qaida cell launched a successful attack on the American Embassy in September 2008.
“How will it make us safer to invest more troops and more treasure in Afghanistan as long as al-Qaida still has the ability to establish safe havens in other countries?,” asked Senator Collins.
Secretary Gates responded that al-Qaida’s presence in the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan is “still the well-spring of inspiration ground for extremist jihadism everywhere. The fact is the inspiration and the guidance and strategic leadership comes from the al-Qaida leadership in that area.”
Senator Collins then questioned Secretary of State Clinton and asked whether she believes the United States can succeed in Afghanistan, given the tremendous obstacles, “despite the brilliance of our leaders, the courage of our troops, and the efforts of the civilian component.”
“Is this an impossible task? We have a corrupt and ineffective government as a partner in Afghanistan. We have seen, in the past two years, even with the presence of NATO troops, the government lose control of much of the country. Can this work?” asked Senator Collins.
“We believe it can. This is a critical question,” Secretary Clinton responded.
Senator Collins has said that she continues to have questions about the impact of deploying more American combat troops to Afghanistan. But she agrees with the President that it is crucial that the U.S. help expand the size of the Afghan Army and that any surge of American troops must be accompanies by a surge in Afghan troops.
Witnesses included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
Senator Collins, who has traveled to Afghanistan four times, most recently last August, asked Secretary Gates why the Administration feels it is critical to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan when al-Qaida currently has a presence in as many as 20 countries, including Yemen where an al-Qaida cell launched a successful attack on the American Embassy in September 2008.
“How will it make us safer to invest more troops and more treasure in Afghanistan as long as al-Qaida still has the ability to establish safe havens in other countries?,” asked Senator Collins.
Secretary Gates responded that al-Qaida’s presence in the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan is “still the well-spring of inspiration ground for extremist jihadism everywhere. The fact is the inspiration and the guidance and strategic leadership comes from the al-Qaida leadership in that area.”
Senator Collins then questioned Secretary of State Clinton and asked whether she believes the United States can succeed in Afghanistan, given the tremendous obstacles, “despite the brilliance of our leaders, the courage of our troops, and the efforts of the civilian component.”
“Is this an impossible task? We have a corrupt and ineffective government as a partner in Afghanistan. We have seen, in the past two years, even with the presence of NATO troops, the government lose control of much of the country. Can this work?” asked Senator Collins.
“We believe it can. This is a critical question,” Secretary Clinton responded.
Senator Collins has said that she continues to have questions about the impact of deploying more American combat troops to Afghanistan. But she agrees with the President that it is crucial that the U.S. help expand the size of the Afghan Army and that any surge of American troops must be accompanies by a surge in Afghan troops.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Calais border crossing officially opened
Bangor Daily News -
The United States held official dedication ceremonies at its newest border crossing Monday at the port of entry in Calais, the sister port to another new facility on the St. Stephen, New Brunswick, side of the St. Croix River.
Sen. Susan Collins labeled the crossing “our new front door” and said it opened the way to economic development opportunities and reinforced the close relationship between Maine and New Brunswick.
Collins said the project, which will allow all commercial traffic to bypass downtown Calais, used $77 million in federal funding. She said Maine’s congressional delegation members often are called “dogs on a bone” because of their tenacity in seeking funding.
“Our borders must be closed to our enemies but open to our friends,” she said. New Brunswick and Maine share friends, family, medical services and an economy, she said.
The new crossing will alleviate lengthy delays at the Ferry Point and Milltown crossings in Calais, which will remain open for passenger vehicle traffic.
“The congestion and delays there were no longer acceptable,” Collins said. The new port stands on 53 acres while the Ferry Point port, built in the early 1900s, is just more than an acre.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment
Weekly column by Senator Collins
In investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Commission discovered vital information scattered throughout the government that might have prevented the deaths and destruction of that terrible day if only the dots had been connected.
In the wake of the mass murder at Fort Hood, our nation once again must confront a troubling question: Was this another failure to connect the dots?
Much has been done since 9-11-01 to respond to the failures exposed by those attacks. We created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), additional Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and fusion centers. We revised information sharing policies and promoted greater cooperation among intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The results have been significant. Terrorist plots, both at home and abroad, have been thwarted. The recent arrest in Denver of a suspected al Qaeda terror cell operative demonstrates the benefits of information sharing and joint efforts by the NCTC and other intelligence agencies, as well as federal, state, and local law enforcement.
But the shootings at Fort Hood may indicate that communication failures and poor judgment calls can defeat systems intended to ensure that vital information is shared to protect our country and its citizens. This case also raises questions about whether or not restrictive rules have a chilling effect on the legitimate dissemination of information, making it too difficult to connect the dots that would have allowed a clear picture of the threat to emerge.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I joined Chairman Lieberman in the first Congressional examination of this terrible tragedy. Our ongoing investigation will seek answers to questions such as how did our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies handle intercepted communications between Major Hasan and a radical cleric and known al Qaeda associate? Did they contact anyone in Major Hasan’s chain of command to relay concerns? Did they seek to interview Major Hasan himself?
When Major Hasan reportedly began to openly question the oath that he had taken to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, did anyone in his military chain of command intervene?
When Major Hasan, in his 2007 presentation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, recommended that the Department of Defense allow “Muslim soldiers the option of being released as ‘conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events,” did his colleagues and superior officers view this statement as a red flag?
Were numerous warning signs ignored because the Army faces a shortage of psychiatrists and was concerned, as the Army Chief of Staff has subsequently put it, about a “backlash against Muslim soldiers?”
For nearly four years, our Committee has been investigating the threat of homegrown terrorism. We have explored radicalization in our prisons, the cycle of violent radicalization, and how the Internet can act as a “virtual terrorist training camp.” We have warned that individuals within the United States can be inspired by al Qaeda’s violent ideology to plan and execute attacks even if they do not receive direct orders from al Qaeda to do so. And we have learned of the difficulty of detecting “lone wolf” terrorists.
To prevent future homegrown terrorist attacks, we must understand why our law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and our military personnel system may have failed in this case.
Major Hasan’s attack targeted innocent soldiers and civilians regardless of their religious faith. These patriotic soldiers and civilians were injured and killed not on a foreign battleground but rather on what should have been safe and secure American territory.
With so many questions still swirling around this heinous attack, it is important for the nation to understand what happened so that we may work to prevent future incidents. We owe that to our brave and dedicated troops, to their families and communities, and to all Americans.
In investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Commission discovered vital information scattered throughout the government that might have prevented the deaths and destruction of that terrible day if only the dots had been connected.
In the wake of the mass murder at Fort Hood, our nation once again must confront a troubling question: Was this another failure to connect the dots?
Much has been done since 9-11-01 to respond to the failures exposed by those attacks. We created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), additional Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and fusion centers. We revised information sharing policies and promoted greater cooperation among intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The results have been significant. Terrorist plots, both at home and abroad, have been thwarted. The recent arrest in Denver of a suspected al Qaeda terror cell operative demonstrates the benefits of information sharing and joint efforts by the NCTC and other intelligence agencies, as well as federal, state, and local law enforcement.
But the shootings at Fort Hood may indicate that communication failures and poor judgment calls can defeat systems intended to ensure that vital information is shared to protect our country and its citizens. This case also raises questions about whether or not restrictive rules have a chilling effect on the legitimate dissemination of information, making it too difficult to connect the dots that would have allowed a clear picture of the threat to emerge.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I joined Chairman Lieberman in the first Congressional examination of this terrible tragedy. Our ongoing investigation will seek answers to questions such as how did our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies handle intercepted communications between Major Hasan and a radical cleric and known al Qaeda associate? Did they contact anyone in Major Hasan’s chain of command to relay concerns? Did they seek to interview Major Hasan himself?
When Major Hasan reportedly began to openly question the oath that he had taken to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, did anyone in his military chain of command intervene?
When Major Hasan, in his 2007 presentation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, recommended that the Department of Defense allow “Muslim soldiers the option of being released as ‘conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events,” did his colleagues and superior officers view this statement as a red flag?
Were numerous warning signs ignored because the Army faces a shortage of psychiatrists and was concerned, as the Army Chief of Staff has subsequently put it, about a “backlash against Muslim soldiers?”
For nearly four years, our Committee has been investigating the threat of homegrown terrorism. We have explored radicalization in our prisons, the cycle of violent radicalization, and how the Internet can act as a “virtual terrorist training camp.” We have warned that individuals within the United States can be inspired by al Qaeda’s violent ideology to plan and execute attacks even if they do not receive direct orders from al Qaeda to do so. And we have learned of the difficulty of detecting “lone wolf” terrorists.
To prevent future homegrown terrorist attacks, we must understand why our law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and our military personnel system may have failed in this case.
Major Hasan’s attack targeted innocent soldiers and civilians regardless of their religious faith. These patriotic soldiers and civilians were injured and killed not on a foreign battleground but rather on what should have been safe and secure American territory.
With so many questions still swirling around this heinous attack, it is important for the nation to understand what happened so that we may work to prevent future incidents. We owe that to our brave and dedicated troops, to their families and communities, and to all Americans.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Boosting Deepwater, Offshore Wind Research
Weekly column by Senator Susan Collins
Here in Maine, we pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country. These high prices are not only difficult for residential customers, but they are also an impediment to doing business in our state. During a recent tour of National Semiconductor in South Portland, company officials told me that the high cost of electricity is their number one issue in terms of adding jobs in Maine versus other states.
I believe that deepwater, offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our nation’s electricity needs and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But, it also presents an exciting opportunity for the State of Maine to help stabilize high electricity rates and create much-needed, good-paying “green jobs.”
I am introducing legislation that would require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application to advance offshore wind turbine technology. This bill would advance the goal of the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our nation’s electricity from wind resources by 2030.
Sixty-one percent of our country’s wind resource is in deepwater, greater than 197 feet depth. Winds at these offshore locations, out-of-sign from land, are stronger and more consistent than closer to shore or on land. It will, however, take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and cost-effectively.
My bill would focus national efforts to develop offshore wind technologies. This should be a national priority because it can produce clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 coastal states use 78 percent of the electricity in the U.S. For example, Maine’s offshore wind resource is close to the 55 million people live in New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population.
Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require improvements in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore wind turbines and reductions in the cost of manufacturing, construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy systems. That is why my bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to support existing university centers, like the new one at the University of Maine, and establish other centers to support research, development, demonstration and commercial application. The bill would authorize $50 million annually over ten years for:
* the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, components, and supporting land- and water-based infrastructure for application in shallow water, transitional depth, and deep water offshore;
* full-scale testing and establishment of regional demonstrations of offshore wind components and systems to validate technology and performance;
* assessments of U.S. offshore wind resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for inclusion in a publically accessible database;.
* design, demonstration, and deployment of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as composite materials;
* advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade manufacturing capacity;
* methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on marine ecosystems and marine industries; and
* other research areas as determined by the Secretary.
Maine is already leading the way when it comes to deepwater, offshore wind research. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy announced an $8 million grant for research at the University of Maine. In addition, the final version of the 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included $5 million that I secured for the Maine Offshore Wind Initiative at UMaine. The State of Maine has also committed its own funding and policy initiatives toward supporting a deepwater, offshore wind research center at the University.
This is a critical investment in Maine’s future. Estimates are that development of five gigawatts of offshore wind in Maine – enough to power more than 1 million homes for a year -- could attract $20 billion of investment to the state and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that will be sustained over 30 years. Maine has the manufacturing infrastructure and workforce to partner with the University to make this new industry of deepwater offshore wind technology a reality.
My bill would further support important renewable energy research that would help reduce our use of fossil fuels, improve our energy security, and help stabilize electricity rates. This is a great technological challenge, but we must begin to make the investments now.
Here in Maine, we pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country. These high prices are not only difficult for residential customers, but they are also an impediment to doing business in our state. During a recent tour of National Semiconductor in South Portland, company officials told me that the high cost of electricity is their number one issue in terms of adding jobs in Maine versus other states.
I believe that deepwater, offshore wind has enormous potential to help us meet our nation’s electricity needs and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But, it also presents an exciting opportunity for the State of Maine to help stabilize high electricity rates and create much-needed, good-paying “green jobs.”
I am introducing legislation that would require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application to advance offshore wind turbine technology. This bill would advance the goal of the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our nation’s electricity from wind resources by 2030.
Sixty-one percent of our country’s wind resource is in deepwater, greater than 197 feet depth. Winds at these offshore locations, out-of-sign from land, are stronger and more consistent than closer to shore or on land. It will, however, take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and cost-effectively.
My bill would focus national efforts to develop offshore wind technologies. This should be a national priority because it can produce clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 coastal states use 78 percent of the electricity in the U.S. For example, Maine’s offshore wind resource is close to the 55 million people live in New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population.
Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require improvements in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore wind turbines and reductions in the cost of manufacturing, construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy systems. That is why my bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to support existing university centers, like the new one at the University of Maine, and establish other centers to support research, development, demonstration and commercial application. The bill would authorize $50 million annually over ten years for:
* the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, components, and supporting land- and water-based infrastructure for application in shallow water, transitional depth, and deep water offshore;
* full-scale testing and establishment of regional demonstrations of offshore wind components and systems to validate technology and performance;
* assessments of U.S. offshore wind resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for inclusion in a publically accessible database;.
* design, demonstration, and deployment of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as composite materials;
* advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade manufacturing capacity;
* methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on marine ecosystems and marine industries; and
* other research areas as determined by the Secretary.
Maine is already leading the way when it comes to deepwater, offshore wind research. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy announced an $8 million grant for research at the University of Maine. In addition, the final version of the 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included $5 million that I secured for the Maine Offshore Wind Initiative at UMaine. The State of Maine has also committed its own funding and policy initiatives toward supporting a deepwater, offshore wind research center at the University.
This is a critical investment in Maine’s future. Estimates are that development of five gigawatts of offshore wind in Maine – enough to power more than 1 million homes for a year -- could attract $20 billion of investment to the state and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that will be sustained over 30 years. Maine has the manufacturing infrastructure and workforce to partner with the University to make this new industry of deepwater offshore wind technology a reality.
My bill would further support important renewable energy research that would help reduce our use of fossil fuels, improve our energy security, and help stabilize electricity rates. This is a great technological challenge, but we must begin to make the investments now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
