Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes, I will.

Mr. REED. This is something that has been ongoing for many years. I can recall visiting a training facility in Rhode Island--formerly Quonset Point Naval Air Station; now it is a National Guard station-- where they were training Iraqi Air Force pilots to fly C-130J aircraft. Again, had this order been in effect, those pilots would not have been allowed in for the training that not only helps them but helps the thousands of American military personnel in Iraq, shoulder to shoulder, fighting together, depending on not just the presence but the confidence of the Iraqi military in the United States and that reciprocal mutual relationship. This measure sends a terrible signal to them saying: Go ahead and fight, but you won't get to the United States. It is particularly the case I make with respect to these people who feel threatened because they helped us. We have a special visa program, but right now that is in limbo because we essentially said they can't come in, even though they risked their lives to protect our interests and the interests of their own country. We are creating huge problems, and, again, I haven't heard the nominee speak out decisively and clearly about the problems this policy is engendering, and that is incumbent upon the individual. We have traditionally granted nominees broad deference out of respect for the President, and I don't think this is an issue of simply stopping a nominee for the sake of stopping a nominee. But we are not a rubberstamp either. We have to come here and make the case. When we see examples of behaviors that demonstrably threaten the security of the United States, our ability to cooperate with others, our image in the world, and we are not confident that our Secretary of State will not only reject those but effectively argue within and without that we have a higher purpose, a better goal, a better policy, then it is our obligation to stand and to render a vote of no, and I intend to do that. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have the privilege of being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, working with Senator McCain with respect to the nomination of General Mattis. I am strongly in favor of the general's confirmation for many reasons. He possesses three distinct qualities that are absolutely critical: confidence, courage, and character. And he will eminently demonstrate those virtues as Secretary of Defense, in my view. I would like to also inform the body and everyone else that we just did this in a very thorough, careful, thoughtful way. General Mattis was subject to a 60-vote procedural vote because we had to waive his time from retirement to his ability to serve as Secretary of Defense. We had a hearing under the auspices of the chairman about the policy with two noted historians and policy experts. Then we had a hearing with General Mattis. We have collectively--and the chairman's leadership is invaluable--moved to ensure that today we can confirm General Mattis. This has been an opportunity that we have not used to delay, defer, or deflect the Mattis nomination. In fact, it was the one that we all recognized that would have been subject to a 60-vote point of order. So this represents the demonstrated good faith of our focus to ensure that we can get people in place for the President. With that, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe I still retain the floor. Let me make the point that I appreciate very much the Senator from Arizona allowing me 5 minutes, but I will yield that 5 minutes so that at the end, the Senator from Arizona would have 5 minutes, and then I would suggest we recognize Senator Merkley so that we can conduct the vote at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 84, a bill that would provide a one-time exception from the longstanding law that requires a member of the military to be retired from the armed services for at least 7 years before being appointed as Secretary of Defense. We are considering this legislation today because the President-elect's nominee for Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, has only been retired from the U.S. Marine Corps for 3 years. In considering the unique situation presented by this nomination, this week the Armed Services Committee held two hearings. The first hearing, on Tuesday, had a panel of two excellent outside witnesses who discussed the history of the retirement restriction law and the benefits and challenges of legislating an exception to that law. Then, this morning, the committee held a nomination hearing with General Mattis and examined his views on a wide range of defense challenges facing our country and the Defense Department. General Mattis has a long and distinguished military career, and he is recognized by his peers as a thoughtful and strategic thinker. However, since its passage in 1947, the statutory requirement designed to protect civilian control of the Armed Forces has only been waived one other time. Therefore, I believe it is extremely important that we carefully consider the consequences of setting aside the law and the implications such a decision may have on the future of civilian and military relations. Civilian control of the military is enshrined in our Constitution and dates back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. This principle has distinguished our Nation from many other countries around the world, and it has helped ensure that our democracy remains in the hands of the people. The National Security Act of 1947, which established the Department of Defense, included a provision prohibiting any individual ``within ten years'' of ``active duty as a commissioned officer in a regular component of the armed services'' from being appointed as the Secretary of Defense. However, in 1950, President Harry Truman nominated former Secretary of State and former Chief of Staff of the United States Army General George Marshall to serve as the Secretary of Defense, thus causing Congress to pass an exception to the statute. While Congress ultimately waived the restriction for General Marshall, the law included a nonbinding section that stated: ``It is hereby expressed as the intent of the Congress that the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of the continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of the Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.'' Nearly 70 years later, Congress again must make a determination if an exception should be made in the case of General Mattis. Let me remind my colleagues why making this change is so significant. During our committee hearings, Dr. Kathleen Hicks astutely noted: ``The Defense Secretary position is unique in our system. Other than the President acting as commander in chief, the Secretary of Defense is the only civilian official in the operational chain of command to the Armed Forces. Unlike the President, however, he or she is not an elected official.'' As I stated during the committee's consideration of the waiver legislation, we must be very cautious about any actions, including this legislation, that may inadvertently politicize our Armed Forces. During this past Presidential election cycle, both Democrats and Republicans came dangerously close to compromising the nonpartisan nature of our military with the nominating convention speeches from recently retired general officers advocating for a candidate for President. I am also concerned about providing a waiver for General Mattis in light of the fact that he will join other recently retired senior military officers who have been selected for high-ranking national security positions in the Trump Administration. Throughout our Nation's history, retired general officers have often held positions at the highest levels of government as civilians. In fact, a few have even been elected President. What concerns me, however, is the total number of retired senior military officers chosen by the President-elect to lead organizations critical to our national security and the cumulative affect it may have on our overall national security policy. Specifically, there may be unintended consequences having so many senior leaders with similar military backgrounds crafting policy and making decisions as weighty as those facing the next administration. In the course of our review of General Mattis' nomination, the reason most often cited in support of a waiver allowing him to serve is that a retired four-star general known for his war-fighting skills and strategic judgment to lead the Department of Defense will counterbalance the President-elect's lack of defense and foreign policy experience. As Tom Ricks wrote recently in The New York Times: ``Usually I'd oppose having a general as Secretary of Defense, because it could undermine our tradition of civilian control of the military. But these are not normal times.'' Likewise, Dr. Eliot Cohen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, and he argued that if it weren't for his deep concern about the Trump Administration, he would oppose the waiver for General Mattis. Specifically, he stated: ``There is no question in my mind that a Secretary Mattis would be a stabilizing and moderating force . . . and over time, helping to steer American foreign and security policy in a sound and sensible direction.'' If Congress provides an exception for General Mattis, we must be mindful of the precedent that action sets for such waivers in the future. The restriction was enacted into law for good reason, and General George Marshall is the only retired military officer to receive this exception. Based on General Mattis' testimony this morning, as well as his decades of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, and weighing all of the other factors, I will support a waiver for him to serve as Secretary of Defense. General Mattis testified to the fact that the role of Congress does not end with the passage of this legislation. As Dr. Hicks stated, ``The United States Congress, the nation's statutes and courts, the professionalism of our Armed Forces, and the will of the people are critical safeguards against any perceived attempts to fundamentally alter the quality of civilian control of the military in this country.'' Any of us who support this bill have a profound duty to ensure that the Department of Defense and its leaders, both civilian and military, are following and protecting the principles upon which this country is founded. Let me be very clear. I will not support a waiver for any future nominees under the incoming administration or future administrations. I view this as a generational exception, as our bipartisan witnesses recommended. I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle make this same commitment. Indeed, I intend to propose reestablishing the original 10-year ban which was in place when the Defense Department was established. Restoring the threshold for service to 10 years would send a strong signal that this principle of civilian control of the military is essential to our Democratic system of government. At this point I would ask if the chairman of the committee might engage in a colloquy. I do that first by thanking him for the extraordinarily fair, thoughtful, and careful way he has guided this nomination through the committee and here to the floor. I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona for the thoughtful and thorough process we have had in considering the nomination of General Mattis. I think one of the high points was a hearing on civilian military relations with Eliot Cohen and Kathleen Hicks. Both witnesses emphasized that while they supported this waiver, it should be a rare, generational exception to ensure the integrity of civilian control of our military, which is the bedrock of our democracy. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment, and I would ask the chairman if he also agrees with that assessment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe the chairman does concur with me regarding the fact that this is a rare and generational exception; I think that is fair to say.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. REED. We hope so, and I think, if we recognize Senator Merkley for his comments, and then I think the chairman of the committee has comments, we would be on that schedule.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam Clerk, for the people of Rhode Island I vote no.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senator Blumenthal. This legislation would end special tax exemptions for huge CEO bonuses by closing a glaring loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. If executives perform, companies may compensate them however they wish, but U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses. Under current tax law, when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. However, a loophole relating to performance-based compensation has allowed many public corporations to avoid such limits and freely deduct excessive executive compensation. To illustrate how this loophole works, if a CEO receives $1 million in cash compensation and $14 million in performance-based compensation in a given year, the public corporation's taxable income would decline by $15 million. With the current corporate tax rate at 35 percent, the corporation in this case would receive a tax giveway of $5.25 million. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act puts an end to that giveaway and limits public corporations to a single $1 million per employee deduction as was originally intended. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation could deduct $1 million of the CEO's $15 million compensation package but could not claim a deduction on the remaining $14 million. So instead of claiming $5.25 million in Federal subsidies for the CEO's pay, this public corporation will be contributing $4.9 million toward improving our roads, our schools, and our military--costs that middle-class families are already underwriting. Indeed, over a 10-year window, the Joint Committee on Taxation, in their most recent assessment, estimated that closing this loophole would save U.S. taxpayers over $50 billion. Specifically, our legislation first applies section 162(m) of the Tax Code to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hard-working taxpayers through our Tax Code. Second, our bill removes the exemption for performance-based compensation, which currently permits compensation deductions above and beyond $1 million when executives have met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's board of directors. As a result, publicly traded corporations would still be able to incentivize their executives, but all such incentives would be subject to a corporate deductibility cap of $1 million. Finally, our legislation makes a technical correction to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section 162(m). Currently, this section of the Tax Code only covers some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging extravagant compensation packages shouldn't turn on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole. Even our President-elect has acknowledged the problem of excessive CEO pay. When asked about this issue on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' on September 13, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Trump said, ``Well, it does bug me. It's very hard if you have a free enterprise system to do anything about that. The boards of companies are supposed to do it. But I know companies very well. And the CEO puts in all his friends. And so you will take a company like, I could say Macy's or many other companies, where they put in their friends as head of the company, and they get whatever they want, because the friends love sitting on the board. So that's a system that we have. And it's a shame and it's disgraceful. And, sometimes, the boards rule. But I would say it's probably less than 10 percent. And you see these guys making these enormous amounts of money. It's a total and complete joke.'' Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive CEO compensation, derailing the lavish tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hard-working taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out to their CEOs. We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. This bill would eliminate some of the inequity in the Tax Code. Again, companies are free to pay their executives as much as they want, but the American taxpayer shouldn't help foot the bill for a CEO's multimillion-dollar bonus. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and MIT professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senator Blumenthal. This legislation would end special tax exemptions for huge CEO bonuses by closing a glaring loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. If executives perform, companies may compensate them however they wish, but U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses. Under current tax law, when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. However, a loophole relating to performance-based compensation has allowed many public corporations to avoid such limits and freely deduct excessive executive compensation. To illustrate how this loophole works, if a CEO receives $1 million in cash compensation and $14 million in performance-based compensation in a given year, the public corporation's taxable income would decline by $15 million. With the current corporate tax rate at 35 percent, the corporation in this case would receive a tax giveway of $5.25 million. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act puts an end to that giveaway and limits public corporations to a single $1 million per employee deduction as was originally intended. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation could deduct $1 million of the CEO's $15 million compensation package but could not claim a deduction on the remaining $14 million. So instead of claiming $5.25 million in Federal subsidies for the CEO's pay, this public corporation will be contributing $4.9 million toward improving our roads, our schools, and our military--costs that middle-class families are already underwriting. Indeed, over a 10-year window, the Joint Committee on Taxation, in their most recent assessment, estimated that closing this loophole would save U.S. taxpayers over $50 billion. Specifically, our legislation first applies section 162(m) of the Tax Code to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hard-working taxpayers through our Tax Code. Second, our bill removes the exemption for performance-based compensation, which currently permits compensation deductions above and beyond $1 million when executives have met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's board of directors. As a result, publicly traded corporations would still be able to incentivize their executives, but all such incentives would be subject to a corporate deductibility cap of $1 million. Finally, our legislation makes a technical correction to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section 162(m). Currently, this section of the Tax Code only covers some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging extravagant compensation packages shouldn't turn on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole. Even our President-elect has acknowledged the problem of excessive CEO pay. When asked about this issue on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' on September 13, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Trump said, ``Well, it does bug me. It's very hard if you have a free enterprise system to do anything about that. The boards of companies are supposed to do it. But I know companies very well. And the CEO puts in all his friends. And so you will take a company like, I could say Macy's or many other companies, where they put in their friends as head of the company, and they get whatever they want, because the friends love sitting on the board. So that's a system that we have. And it's a shame and it's disgraceful. And, sometimes, the boards rule. But I would say it's probably less than 10 percent. And you see these guys making these enormous amounts of money. It's a total and complete joke.'' Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive CEO compensation, derailing the lavish tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hard-working taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out to their CEOs. We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. This bill would eliminate some of the inequity in the Tax Code. Again, companies are free to pay their executives as much as they want, but the American taxpayer shouldn't help foot the bill for a CEO's multimillion-dollar bonus. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and MIT professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution that the Senate will vote on this week. We are nearly half way through the fiscal year, and the Republicans have offered this budget resolution not to set a path forward for spending for the year but to give them the ability to repeal the Affordable Care Act through the budget process, requiring less support than is needed under regular order. This budget is nothing more than a sham, being used to take away health insurance from more than 20 million Americans. What is worse is that my Republican colleagues intend to do so without any plan in place to mitigate the impact and protect the people who will be harmed. The uninsured rate is at its lowest point in recent history. Since the implementation of the ACA in my State of Rhode Island, the uninsured rate has fallen from 12 percent to under 4.5 percent. In real terms, that means that over 100,000 people in Rhode Island have gained coverage because of the ACA. That is about 10 percent of my State's population. Over 30,000 middle-income Rhode Islanders get tax credits averaging $250 a month to help them afford coverage on the State's health insurance marketplace. We cannot go back to a system that allows private insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or charge more to those who need insurance the most. In fact, the Republican plan for repealing the ACA means that nearly half a million Rhode Islanders with preexisting conditions, about half the State's population, will be denied coverage or will be charged more. Again, as Senator Murray described so eloquently in the case of a young man who needs years of expensive treatment, if preexisting conditions are once again possible and if that young man is dropped from his parents' plan at 21, both of those factors will probably deny him the coverage that he enjoys today, and that is not what we want to do. I hope that is not what we want to do. In my State, there are over 106,000 Rhode Islanders with diabetes, over 112,000 with asthma, and nearly 63,000 cancer survivors who will be forced to pay more for coverage. These are huge numbers in my State--roughly 1 million people in population. They have these conditions, and insurance companies said in the past: We won't cover you, or, by the way, you will be spending 2, 3, 5, 10 times as much for the coverage we extend to someone else. We have also been able to improve coverage through the ACA for those who are getting their care through their employer. Before the ACA, insurance plans, including employer-sponsored health coverage, could impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, meaning that coverage could end when it was most needed. You could have a job, and you could have insurance at a job, but if you have a serious condition, when you reach that limit, that is it--no more responsibility by the company. That is exactly the time you need the help because you have already either exhausted some of your own resources or you are in a position where you have been sick for so long that your ability to go back into the workplace is practically nonexistent. The ACA prohibits these limits, along with ensuring free preventive care and coverage of dependents up to age 26, ensuring real coverage for nearly 600,000 workers in Rhode Island with employer coverage. There is a perception out there that the ACA doesn't apply to employer coverage and that it has no effect--that if it is repealed, it is fine because I get my health insurance from my employer. That is not the case. The impact will be there, and it could leave many people devastated. Additionally, the ACA strengthened the rate review processes to help control premiums. Prior to the ACA, double-digit increases were always the norm. When I served in the House and in my first years in the Senate, invariably, when trade associations came to visit me, the first or second issue on the list was this: Our insurance coverage just went up 20 percent. We can't afford it anymore. We are dropping coverage or telling our workers: Do you want a raise, or do you want coverage? You can't get both. Well, we have to do more to keep premiums under control and bring down costs, but there has been an improvement under the ACA in my State and in many other States. In 2 of the last 3 years, premiums actually went down from the previous year in Rhode Island. During open enrollment for 2017, Rhode Islanders saw decreases of as much as 5 percent in their premiums. In fact, due to the ACA, consumers in Rhode Island have saved nearly $220 million since 2012, according to the State resource. This program has done something that we were feverishly trying to do, which was to somehow bring costs under control and reduce them if we could but certainly eliminate the double-digit growth, when every year every employer group was coming in and saying: We can't afford this. We want to cover our workers, but we can't. We are giving them that choice, or we will have to sadly say we can't give you insurance anymore. Repealing the ACA would end all of these consumer protections and put insurance companies back in charge. One other thing that it has done is that we actually required that a significant amount of the premium be used for health care, not overhead. We actually built into the law that, if you are going to charge a premium, it better go to help people get health care, not just to boost your profits, dividends, or anything else. That is another factor that has helped positively this rate and premium structure. Then, of course, there is a huge economic impact of ACA repeal. For years I have heard my Republican colleagues very sincerely and adamantly declare that the ACA is a job killer, that it was going to destroy millions of jobs. That was one of the refrains that echoed throughout this Chamber as we were debating the ACA for months and years afterwards. But what has happened? We have had an unprecedented 75 consecutive months of job growth--something we haven't seen since 1939. Repealing the ACA would wreak havoc on this progress. Premiums for everyone, not just those in the individual market, will skyrocket. Large businesses will see their health care costs go up, which means workers will forgo pay increases as their employers struggle to simply maintain health care coverage or they will drop the coverage entirely. We have come a long way since the economic downturn in 2008, and we have much more work to do to keep things moving in the right direction, but one of the worst things we can do for the economy is to repeal the ACA. Rhode Island stands to lose over $7 billion in Federal funding over the next 10 years with repeal. Again, that is a staggering number in my State--$7 billion. That would be devastating for the State because they would have to step up as best they could, and frankly, they don't have the kind of resources to replace that loss. It would have an effect on hospitals and other health care providers. Hospitals in Rhode Island stand to lose nearly $2 billion in funding on top of the added expenses of emergency room care for the newly uninsured. We remember the old model of health care. The old model was that, if you didn't have insurance, you went to the emergency room. Those emergency rooms were crowded with people. They were much more expensive to treat because they were there without any previous experience with the physicians and without health records, in many cases. They had to do diagnostic tests that were not available and that are now available at the health care facilities because they have insurance. All of that would come undone. It will be a huge impact on the economy. One of the largest employers in the State of Rhode Island is the hospital system. I don't think we are alone. If you go out into the rural parts of the United States, in many cases, the biggest employer in many counties is the health care system, the hospital system. When they can no longer make their books balance, they are going to have to start closing down operations, laying people off. That is what is going to happen. This is not farfetched. We have seen it before. We have seen struggling hospitals struggling under emergency room uncompensated care. We have seen all these things happen before. Repealing the ACA would lead to a combination of all these factors--skyrocketing premiums and the loss of Federal funding in health care for States, which would have a ripple effect throughout the country. If Rhode Island or any other State has to step in and partially make up for the loss of Medicaid funds or any other aspect of this program, where are they taking it from? Where are they taking it from? Education, infrastructure, public safety. They will suffer. Ultimately, it is the jobs--the jobs of the people in my State and the jobs of people across the Nation. So there are things we can do to strengthen the bill. Senator Murray was very clear about attempts we have made. She has been one of the great leaders in this effort to make improvements. We have been working on and improving Medicare since 1965, and we still have some work to do, but that was a different program. That was a program that was a bipartisan program, one that was embraced and developed and supported. In fact, one of the ironies today is some of the staunchest supporters and protectors of Medicare are Republicans, as well as Democrats, but that was a program that took several decades to work through, and we are still working through issues with respect to Medicare. We are prepared to do that with the Affordable Care Act in a principled, thoughtful, practical, pragmatic way, not to score political points, but to make it a system that is more affordable, more effective, and that gives more American families a chance. Frankly, you don't have much of a chance for a good education, a good job, or a secure retirement when your health is in jeopardy and your finances are equally in jeopardy. At this point, the Republicans have offered no plan to replace the ACA, and it is a tough task. I served on the HELP Committee as we were drafting this, and we spent over a year on this law. We spent countless moments reaching out to our colleagues on the Republican side asking: Can we make this better? What improvements can we make? We had numerous folks in the mix. It is tough work. To suggest that we can just repeal this and something will magically appear, I don't think that is particularly logical, obvious, or will happen. Roughly, 7 years have gone by since the passage of this bill, where the Republicans have had a chance to prepare a detailed plan to replace aspects of the ACA or replace it. I don't think that plan is out there. It is certainly not being communicated. We have to ensure--and Senator Murray was very effective in making this point--that we can improve ACA, not demolish it, that, if we get into a legislative process, we produce a better outcome for the American people, not an outcome of denial of health care and financial uncertainty and perhaps even financial ruin. So we have to get to work. I think we are prepared to do this but in the context of something pragmatic and productive for the benefit of the American people. Let me switch gears, just for a moment, and talk about Medicare and Medicaid because, when people talk about Medicare and Medicaid, they usually don't make an association with the ACA. They think that is something else. I can recall being in a public discussion in August of 2009, when we were discussing ACA before it became law, and something came up that was very critical about the program because they didn't want publicly funded insurance in any way, shape, or form, and I asked: Where do you get your health care? Well, I have a private provider. Again, I asked: Where do you get your health care? I am on Medicare. Medicare is, as I recall, a single-payer national system of health care, a funded entitlement by the government, with some copayments by participants. Medicare and Medicaid are effective in a significant way. We made historic improvements to these programs, enhancing benefits. Indeed, we added 9 years of solvency to the Medicare trust fund. One of the great issues that reverberates throughout this Chamber is we have to control entitlements. We have to prepare for the future. We have to make sure these social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and others are solvent. We added years of solvency to the program in the ACA. If it is repealed, subtract 9 years of solvency from the Medicare trust fund. Tell seniors and people in their fifties who are getting ready to enjoy the benefits: Just take 9 years off your expected benefits, or at least a portion of the benefits. The ACA made a number of other improvements. They closed and are closing the doughnut hole for prescriptions, they eliminated cost sharing for cancer screenings, for example, for Medicare recipients. Over 15,000 Rhode Islanders saved $14 million on drugs in 2015. That is an average of $912 per Medicare beneficiary because of what we did with respect to the doughnut hole. In the same year, over 92,000 Rhode Islanders--huge numbers in my State--took advantage of free preventive services, representing over 76 percent of the beneficiaries. Seventy- six percent of the Medicare beneficiaries in my State took advantage of free services. Otherwise, they would have paid out of their pocket, and, frankly, many seniors don't have the resources to do that. Repealing the ACA means these benefits go away, and it shortens the trust fund by about a decade. Repeal would also mean cutting $270 million in Federal funds to help pay for health coverage for low-income adults, children, seniors, and people with disabilities through Medicaid. The ACA expanded eligibility and streamlined enrollment and made it easier for the most vulnerable to access quality health care coverage. As a result, approximately 70,000 Rhode Islanders were able to access coverage for the first time through Medicaid--their previous source of health care: most times, the emergency room, if they could get there. I want to point out a couple of things about Medicaid. Medicaid has become a program for our senior citizens that happens to also help struggling Americans. Seniors make up a small percentage of the Medicaid population but account for approximately half of Medicaid spending nationwide. Nearly 60 percent of nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid. Think about that. Sixty percent of all nursing home residents need Medicaid. The next time you hear someone casually suggest drastic cuts and changes to Medicaid, think about that. Those cuts will work their way back to nursing homes throughout your State. Those families of those seniors are not all people who have been poor and on the margins all of their lives; they are our neighbors, and they will feel it. In Rhode Island, over 30,000 seniors access health care coverage through Medicaid. My colleagues across the aisle want to make drastic cuts to Medicaid. Make no mistake, cuts to Medicaid mean cuts to nursing home services for seniors and a return to pre-Medicaid times when the elderly had few options. In the 1950s and 1960s, before Medicare and Medicaid, your grandmother or grandfather was in your living room in a hospital bed being taken care of by typically your mother. That is the way you grew up back in the 1950s and 1960s in most middle-income neighborhoods. That was at least my experience. If you want to go back, that is what would happen, in some respects, if we repeal this law. If Republicans want to come and work with us, we are ready--more than ready--but we can't stand by and allow them to do the damage they propose: to take away coverage from 20 million Americans and cut benefits to seniors. That is not the right direction for America and for our country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Martin and Jeremy Gelman, fellows in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my fellow Senator from the State of Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, to urge this body to confirm Mary McElroy to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Ms. McElroy is an eminently qualified and dedicated public servant whose nomination was reported unanimously to this body by the Judiciary Committee in January of this year. She, along with 20 other district court nominees from States represented by Members from both sides of the aisle, has undergone the required rigorous vetting process and passed through committee only to have her nomination stalled on the floor of this body. We should confirm all of these nominees right now before the 114th Congress draws to a close. I have been proud to support Mary's nomination at every step of this process. Her legal career has spanned more than 20 years from her time as a paralegal in the Rhode Island Attorney General's office while attending law school at night, clerking for Associate Justice Donald F. Shea of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, private practice, and her work in the State and Federal public defender offices. Throughout her career, she has shown the highest levels of integrity and professionalism and earned the respect and support of Rhode Island's law enforcement community. It is a shame that this Congress may come to a close before Mary can receive what I am sure would be a very strong floor vote in favor of her confirmation. Mary has the full support of her home State and the legal community to assume this role and no assertion to the contrary has been made at any time since her nomination by the President. Should we not take up and pass her nomination this week, as we should have for all these intervening months since the action by the Judiciary Committee, it is my hope that her nomination returns to this body and is given a fair hearing swiftly in the new year.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Army defense fellow for Senator Tom Udall, Mr. Shawn Brown, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take an opportunity to salute and thank and commend my colleagues who are departing. Mark Kirk Mr. President, Senator Kirk, my colleague from Illinois, just finished his remarks. Mark and I had the opportunity and the privilege to work on many things together. He is a Navy commander. He never lets me forget that. He always called me Major; I always called him Commander. He served the State of Illinois with great integrity, great energy, and great spirit, and we thank him for that very much. Thank you for your service to the Nation in the uniform of the United States Navy. We also have other colleagues departing: Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire; Senator Boxer of California, Senator Coats of Indiana; as I mentioned, Senator Kirk of Illinois; Senator Mikulski of Maryland; Senator Reid of Nevada; and Senator Vitter of Louisiana. Each has brought passion in their work to best serve their constituents, and the institution of the Senate and the Nation are better for this service. I am better for knowing them, working with them, and having the opportunity to share with them, and I want to thank them for their service. Let me mention a few words with respect to all of these distinguished Senators. Kelly Ayotte Mr. President, Kelly Ayotte and I worked together for many years on the Armed Services Committee. What she brought was an unparalleled commitment to and passion for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. She wanted them to have a quality of life that reflects their service and their sacrifice. She wanted them to have the training and the equipment that would protect them as they engage our foes, and she wanted to make sure they knew that we were always conscious of their sacrifice and service. She did this in so many different ways, and she did it so well. She was particularly committed to making sure that the A-10 aircraft remained in our inventory. As someone who as a younger person was an infantry officer, I appreciated having seen in training how effective that system is to protect our forces on the ground, and her efforts were unstinting to make sure that our forces were fully protected. Again, that is just one example of her commitment. Barbara Boxer Mr. President, Barbara Boxer and I had the privilege to serve both in the House and the Senate together. My first term in the House of Representatives was Barbara's last term in the House before she was elected to the Senate. She is an extraordinary, tenacious fighter-- remarkably so. She has fought for women's rights. She has fought for the rights of families, for people who needed economic assistance, and for people who needed a chance because she realized that the essence of America is opportunity--opportunity for all, not just for those who are privileged or who have the benefit of wealth or power but for all. She has done this extraordinarily well. A great deal of her energy was directed to environmental protection because that is something that benefits all of us and that is something that is really the biggest legacy we will give to the next generation and the generations that follow. No one has more fiercely defended the environment--not just for a narrow interest, not just for a temporary expedient but for the long-term health and wealth of the American people. Dan Coats Mr. President, Dan Coats and I served together. This goes back to both his tenures in the Senate. Dan and I served in the Armed Services and HELP Committees. He was a remarkable Member. He continues to be a remarkable Member. He left us for a while to serve as Ambassador to Germany. Once again--no surprise--he distinguished himself with his thoughtful support of American policy, with his international approach to issues of concern, and with the ability to bring people together, not just colleagues in the Senate but, also, international colleagues. When he returned, I was very, very grateful for his help. Senator Dean Heller and I were working very hard together on a bipartisan basis to help unemployment insurance extension. Dan joined us in that effort, and I thank him for that. It reflects the huge range of talent and interests that he has and, also, his commitment to the men and women of Indiana, particularly the working men and women of Indiana. Mark Kirk Mr. President, Mark Kirk I have mentioned. I had the privilege, the opportunity, and the pleasure of being able to salute him as he was here. Again, we always greet each other as Major Reed and Commander Kirk, and I see deep symbolism and deep affection in regard to that exchange. I wish him well as he goes forth. David Vitter Mr. President, David Vitter and I served together on the Armed Services Committee, and we continue to serve together on the Banking Committee. As a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he has been very critical in ensuring that we continue our commitment to infrastructure. Infrastructure is a word now that is getting a lot of attention. Years ago, David was interested in that, not only interested but instrumental in making sure we did our best to keep up with infrastructure so that we could have a productive America, so that people could enjoy the benefits, and so that we could be competitive in a global economy. He has done a great deal. One area where we also shared an interest is his Home Owner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, which became law in 2014. This was critical not just to Louisiana but to every coastal State, including Rhode Island. His energy, his commitment, and his dedication made it a success. I want to thank him for that, and I wish him well as he goes forward. Barbara Mikulski Mr. President, Barbara Mikulski--what an extraordinary individual. She is a pioneer. She was the first Democratic woman Senator elected in her own right. She is the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress. Barbara Mikulski and history are one in the same. She has made it. She came from very modest roots in Baltimore. She talked yesterday on the floor about her father and mother running a small grocery store in her neighborhood. She took that sense of community, that sense of dedication, and that sense of selfless service to others. As she said, she was inspired by the nuns that taught her, and that inspiration was extraordinary and fully realized in her life. There are a lot of Sisters of Mercy and Sisters of Notre Dame who are sitting back today thinking: I knew that young lady had it in her. She certainly did. She led us on the Appropriations Committee, the first woman to chair the committee. She has done so much to assist me on issues that are so important to Rhode Island. I must say that she and Kit Bond, one of her colleagues, were extraordinary in recognizing the problems of lead exposure in children and providing needed resources. I thank her for that. She has assisted the fishermen in communities in Rhode Island with real assistance and real aid. She has done it over and over. She has given me profound advice, counsel, and kindness. She said yesterday on the floor: The best ship in the world is friendship. I agree, but ultimately the measure of our service and of our days is kindness. I must say that by that measure, she is a very towering figure in the Senate, in the history of the United States, and I thank her. Harry Reid Mr. President, finally, there is our leader, Harry Reid. Much has been said about Harry today. I will not go over the extraordinary tale of a young man from Searchlight, NV. He was a boxer and a Capitol Police officer while he was working his way through law school. He has always been a fighter--and a fighter for those who need help, not for the powerful but for the people without power. For those without a voice, he has given a voice. I have always appreciated his counsel, his guidance, and his support, which were important to my constituents and important to all Americans. We have worked on numerous pieces of legislation together to address the housing crisis, to extend unemployment insurance, to make college more affordable, and to improve mental health services, to name just a few. As he said today in his remarks, one of his achievements is to be able to give health care protection to millions of Americans who didn't have it and if it is taken away will not have it. He did that because it was the right thing to do, because he understood from his own personal experience how traumatizing and how debilitating and, ultimately, how destructive the lack of access to good health care-- both physical health care and mental health care--is to America, and, also, how it does make us productive. Simply having health care is not just a good thing to do, it is a smart economic thing to do. He led that fight for us. It has been an honor to serve alongside Harry Reid and to see this extraordinary legislator work his way quietly sometimes--many times-- but persistently. There is no one more persistent than Harry. His steady, unselfish leadership will continue to guide us and his example will continue to guide us. I have been very fortunate. I have had the privilege to serve with these ladies and gentlemen, and I want to thank them for their service. Tribute to Vice President Joe Biden Mr. President, I was also very privileged to serve with the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. The Vice President was here yesterday. I was here listening to the comments. I must add, if I could, some words of my own. Joe Biden is a true statesman. I had the privilege of serving with him for over a decade. We traveled together to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. I am honored to have gotten to know him and his wonderful family. Even though he is Vice President of the United States of America--the second highest office of the land--I know the titles he is proudest to hold are father, grandfather, husband, brother, and, after that, Senator. A tribute to Joe Biden really has to extend to some others, and one person I want to single out is his sister, Valerie Biden Owens. Val is not only his closest adviser but the architect of his first campaign and every one thereafter. At a time when very few women were running U.S. Senate campaigns, Val was responsible for electing a 29-year-old newcomer. When tragedy struck, she was the one who helped bring him back, who enabled him to serve the people of Delaware and, ultimately, the people of the United States and of the world. She is a brilliant strategist who has gone on to advise many officeholders. We thank her for her lasting contributions, and I wanted to make sure she got some credit. Both the Vice President and Val are quick to note the real credit goes to their parents--Catherine Jean Finnegan Biden, his mom, and his late, great father, Joe Sr. The Vice President and I would often joke-- and it is not a joke; it is actually a truth: Always aspire to be half as good as mom and dad. That is an Irish aspiration. Joe has made it. I am still working on it, but he is at least half as good as these extraordinary people. If you have spent any time with the Vice President, you know that he is famous for quoting his father and his mother and the wisdom they imparted to all the children--Joe, Val, Jimmy, and Frank. I think you have heard Senator Biden, Chairman Biden, and Vice President Biden say: ``I give you my word as a Biden.'' You know you can take that to the bank. He meant it. Once you heard that, without hesitation, you know he was there with you and would not equivocate, would not deviate, and would be with you. I had the privilege of not only working with Senator Biden, but I also had the privilege of working with a young captain in the U.S. Army, at least briefly, as we visited him, and that was CPT Beau Biden of the Delaware National Guard. Beau Biden didn't have to join the National Guard. He didn't have to volunteer for Iraq, but he felt it was his duty and his obligation. When we were together with him in Iraq, you saw someone who personified the very best of this Nation--a soldier, someone conscientious, someone who would give his all, give his life for others and, particularly, give every ounce of energy and service to this great Nation. Anyone who met Beau knew he was a Biden. He didn't have to say it. He looked like his dad but, more importantly, he acted like his dad-- strong, tough, proud, dedicated, committed to helping others, particularly those who needed a chance, who needed a hand up. He had a passion for social justice, compassion, and that element of kindness. In the sum of his days--of Beau's days--he certainly surpassed that test of kindness, decency, and compassion. The Biden family has known a great deal of tragedy--more than most families--but they have stuck together, and they have shared both moments of triumph and moments of profound sadness. Together, they have shaped history and made this a better nation and a better world. All of us who have had the privilege of knowing Joe, Jill, and their family are better people. Mr. President, let me thank you. Mr. Vice President, Senator, Joe, thank you. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am pleased to support the 21st Century Cures Act, which includes a number of critical mental health provisions, much needed funding for medical research and innovation at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as funding to help combat the opioid crisis in our country. First, I would like to highlight division B of this legislation, the Mental Health Reform Act. The Mental Health Reform Act represents years of work in Congress across party lines to improve the quality of and access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, such as training more behavioral health workers and strengthening parity for mental health and substance abuse treatment. This bill also includes my legislation, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Reauthorization Act, which supports youth suicide prevention grants for schools--elementary schools through college where children and young adults spend most of their time--to be able to reach at-risk youth. I am especially pleased that, for the first time, this bill will allow funding to be used for mental health treatment on college campuses, the most effective way to prevent suicide. I have worked with advocates across the mental health community for the better part of the last decade on this effort, so I am pleased to see this come to fruition. This legislation also includes an infusion of funding for National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration--$4.8 billion over the next 10 years, including $1 billion to be concentrated over the next 3 years for the Cancer Moonshot initiative. I commend Vice President Biden for his work to spearhead the Cancer Moonshot initiative over the last year, and I think it was a fitting tribute that the Senate agreed unanimously to rename this title of the bill after his son, Beau Biden, who tragically lost his life to cancer last year. The remaining funding will be used to support key efforts at the NIH, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative, the BRAIN Initiative, and regenerative medicine using adult stem cells. In addition, the bill contains $1 billion in funding for States to respond to the ongoing opioid epidemic. Earlier this year, passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act was an important first step in addressing this crisis, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against efforts to fund the legislation and provide access to treatment in our communities. I am pleased that we will finally have real funding going to communities this year to provide this treatment. However, I am disappointed that this bill does not make this funding mandatory. We will still have to rely on appropriations in the future to ensure that this funding goes out as intended. I am also concerned about the cuts in this bill, which many of my colleagues have spoken about at length during consideration of the bill, and I would like to echo those comments. For example, this legislation cuts the Prevention and Public Health Fund by $3.5 billion, to the detriment of worthy and vital efforts such as youth suicide prevention, immunizations, and lead poisoning prevention. While I have these reservations, I am pleased that the Congress is able to support bipartisan reforms to our mental health system, as well as funding for medical research and the opioid response. I hope that we will be able to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that these efforts continue to be funded over the next several years.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act. After several months of debate and negotiation, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have arrived at a completed conference agreement. This will be the 55th consecutive time that we pass a National Defense Authorization Act, which sets national security policy and provides important authorities to the Department of Defense. I want to begin by thanking Chairman McCain for his leadership during the course of this year. At his direction, the Senate Armed Services Committee undertook a robust review of how the Department develops strategic guidance and executes their business processes to help the Department operate more effectively and efficiently. I commend the chairman for making this effort a priority for the committee, and I appreciate his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion on this important endeavor. The conference report we are considering today includes many Senate reforms, including efforts to improve the defense strategy documents produced by the Department and reorganizing the Office of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure that the Pentagon emphasizes research and innovation in support of our warfighters. In particular, one of the most important reform efforts included in the final conference agreement is a Senate provision that would create cross-functional teams. This is a new tool for the Secretary of Defense to manage the formation and implementation of policies and solutions for complex problems that inherently cut across the many stovepiped functional organizations in the Department of Defense. The private sector has pioneered and mastered this highly effective integration mechanism for a generation, and business schools and business consultancies have championed its use for decades. I consider this provision to be one of the most important reform initiatives in this bill. None of this would have happened without the leadership, guidance, and constant urging of the chairman, Senator McCain. Once again, I commend him for his extraordinary efforts. As these reforms are introduced, it is imperative that we continue to collaborate with the Department of Defense to ensure that these reforms contribute to our national security and do not create unnecessary and detrimental consequences. This will be a partnership going forward to ensure that these reforms are adequate, appropriate, and work for the benefit of the men and women in uniform, and that is a process in which we will all be engaged. With respect to the budget, the conference agreement we are considering today authorizes a total of $619 billion, which includes $543.4 billion in base budget funding for the Department of Defense and certain security activities of the Department of Energy and $67.8 billion in overseas contingency operations, or OCO, funding. This OCO amount includes $5.8 billion in supplemental funding requested by President Obama for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as well as an additional $3.2 billion above President Obama's budget request for base budget requirements primarily devoted to increased end strength. I have serious concerns about increasing OCO funding above the President's budget request without a corresponding increase in domestic spending. While the OCO account is exempt from budget caps, the purpose of the Budget Control Act was to establish proportionately equal caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending to force a bipartisan compromise on the budget. During consideration of the NDAA, the House and Senate had different approaches on how best to fund these base budget requirements and ongoing military operations. However, after a robust debate, we reached an agreement on a modest increase in OCO to fund increased end strength and to replenish depleted munitions inventories. With respect to Afghanistan, the conference agreement supports our military operations. Specifically, the bill authorizes approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan in 2017, including fully funding the Afghan Security Forces Fund at $4.26 billion to continue support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. Likewise, the bill contains $814 million to enhance the capabilities of the Afghan Air Force and begin a transition from Mi-17 to the UH-60 helicopters. Also--and this is an issue that I support very strongly after a recent trip to Afghanistan--it accelerates the Afghan Aviation Initiative, which is designed to build greater rotary wing capability and fixed-wing capabilities in the Afghan Air Force. This is a critical battlefield advantage that the Afghan forces will have over the Taliban. With respect to Europe, we have fully funded the President's request of $3.4 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative. This funding will support critical investments that will increase rotational U.S. military presence in Europe, improve key infrastructure, and enhance allied and partner military capabilities to respond to external aggression and preserve regional stability. The agreement also includes an authorization of $350 million for the Ukraine training assistance initiative, to continue and expand security assistance and intelligence support to the Ukrainian security forces to protect their sovereignty and encourage a continued focus on robust defense reform efforts. With regard to our special operations forces, they are at the forefront of our fight against ISIL, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The bill also includes important reforms designed to improve the oversight and advocacy for their important efforts by enhancing the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict. I think those reforms will be something we watch and encourage. With respect to other aspects of our security programs, the conference agreement includes a comprehensive reform of Defense Department security cooperation programs. This is the first time such a reform has been undertaken, and it is an effort to ensure there is unity of effort across our government in the security assistance arena. Likewise, the conference agreement includes a provision that would enhance the scope and authority of the Global Engagement Center. For too long we have been losing the information space to our adversaries-- both state and nonstate actors. It is my hope that by providing this critical center at the State Department with a powerful mandate, we can begin to improve our efforts in the information space. The bill also supports modernization efforts of many different weapons platforms. I am particularly pleased to see that we are continuing two-per-year construction of the Virginia-class submarine. It also supports additional requests for advance procurement to keep this production on track. Furthermore, it authorizes $1.9 billion for the Ohio-class replacement, including the first strategic nuclear submarine procurement funds, to begin the process of reinvigorating and rebuilding our underwater nuclear deterrence through the Ohio-class replacement. In addition to modernization of our underwater forces, we are also looking at modernizing our triad of air, sea, and ground delivery platforms for strategic deterrence. This is the beginning of a multi- decade effort involving three major acquisition programs: our ballistic missile submarines--as I have mentioned, the Ohio-class replacement-- long-range penetrating bombers, and also the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Most importantly, we will be modernizing their command and control systems to ensure that our President always has positive control of these forces. As I have stated many times, modernization is critical in light of the increasingly belligerent actions by Russia, which conducted a nuclear exercise immediately after invading Crimea as a form of nuclear intimidation. In the area of technology and acquisition, I am pleased the conference report takes a number of important steps to help DOD maintain its technological superiority. We continue to build on past work on acquisition reform undertaken by the committee, as well as the successes of Defense Secretary Carter and his colleagues, including Under Secretary Kendall, in controlling the costs of major weapons systems procurement programs. The agreement includes a number of steps to improve defense acquisition processes, including strengthening the acquisition workforce, simplifying and streamlining regulatory and bureaucratic burdens on the government and industry, making it easier for DOD to work with innovative small businesses and commercial companies, and promoting the use of prototyping and rapid fielding to speed the development and deployment of advanced new systems. In the area of technological innovation, I hope that reconstituting the position of Under Secretary of Research and Engineering will help promote connections with innovators both inside and outside of the government and ensure that the policies and practices governing our R&D programs, our defense labs, and our engagements with universities and industry are optimized to promote the most efficient and effective development of new systems and technologies. Finally, I think the conference report includes important provisions designed to streamline and modernize Pentagon management processes. The bill supports efforts to develop and execute the modern management techniques and practices modeled on private sector best practices, including the use of big data to improve Pentagon business processes. I believe that refining Pentagon management practices will result in cost savings and efficiencies, freeing up funds for other critical needs. I note that the conferees did not include several provisions regarding the application of Obama administration Executive orders related to labor, safe workplace, and LGBT issues. Many of these are very problematic. I hope we continue to work to ensure the Department engages with fiscally and socially responsible and effective contractors to the best benefit of warfighters and taxpayers alike. Of course, one of the key issues for the committee was the readiness of troops. I am pleased the conference report includes significant resources for the military services' unfunded requirements, with the goal of restoring full-spectrum readiness as soon as possible. For example, the bill includes additional funding for Army units to conduct additional home station training in order to prepare them for future combat training center rotations, as well as additional flight training for the other services. We have also included significant resources in order to provide additional depot maintenance to repair our military aircraft, ships, and combat vehicles. There is also additional funding to better sustain our military installations, specifically in the facilities restoration and modernization accounts. In the area of military personnel, the conference agreement accomplishes much on behalf of our servicemembers and the Department of Defense because we owe them much. It authorizes a 2.1 percent pay raise for all servicemembers, supports requested increases in the housing benefit, and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special pay authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel. Unfortunately, the bill does not include the provision in the Senate- passed bill that would have required women to register for the draft to the same extent men are required. I continue to believe this is the right policy for the Nation and the military. If we are going to have a draft, women must share equally the burden and privilege of service. We must be able to take advantage of their extraordinary talents because without those talents our military today could not function as it does. However, the bill does establish an independent national commission on military, national, and public service to study the need for a military selective service process, including whether the Nation continues to need a mechanism designed to draft large numbers of replacement combat troops; whether women should be required to participate equally in the process; the means by which to foster a greater attitude and ethos of service among the United States' young men and women, including an increased propensity for military service; and how to obtain military, national, and public service individuals with skills for which the Nation has a critical need. This commission could provide valuable insight on how we should proceed, particularly in a state of national emergency, in pulling together the best of our young people to serve the Nation. With respect to health care, the bill contains a robust package of health care reforms that will bring the military health care program in line with the best practices in the civilian health care industry. This is something we have to continue to emphasize--the ability to care and treat all of our personnel and retirees with respect to their health care. I think we have done a lot of important work in this legislation. Let me conclude, as I began, by thanking Chairman McCain and my Senate colleagues on the committee for their thoughtful contributions to this process. I also thank my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Mac Thornberry and Ranking Member Adam Smith. They did a superb job, along with their staffs. This was truly a thoughtful, bipartisan process that resulted in a bill that I believe will receive overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate, as it did in the House. Finally, of course, this agreement would not have been possible without the extraordinary work of the staff. I thank so many, but I particularly thank Chris Brose, Steve Barney, and all the majority committee staff for their hard work. On the Democratic side, I thank my staff director, Elizabeth King. I also thank Gary Leeling, Creighton Greene, Carolyn Chuhta, Maggie McNamara, Jonathan Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Ozge Guzelsu, Jody Bennett, Mike Kuiken, Kirk McConnell, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, and Jon Green. I deeply appreciate all of their efforts. They have made this bill possible. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act, with the goals of bolstering financial stability in the United States and requiring the necessary analysis to assess the consequences of potential changes we might make in the future to the Bankruptcy Code. One of the many lessons that we learned from the financial crisis is that reckless Wall Street behavior can have devastating consequences on middle class Americans, too many of whom lost their jobs, their nest eggs, and their homes. Statistics bear this out. Nationally, over 750,000 jobs per month were lost between January and April 2009. In Rhode Island, over 1,800 jobs per month were lost during this same period. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped from an average of 13,677.89 in July 2007 to an average of 7,235.47 in March 2009, resulting in a 47.1 percent loss for many families who for years had set aside hard earned paychecks for emergencies, college tuitions, and retirements. Nationwide, there were nearly 7.5 million home foreclosures and short sales between July 2007 and November 2014. Unfortunately, the impacts remain to this day for some of our neighbors in Rhode Island and throughout the country as they continue to look for a decent paying job or are faced with gut-wrenching financial decisions like whether to turn the heat off or to skip feeding the family another day just to make ends meet. That lesson of how many of our neighbors suffered due to the sins of the rich and powerful seems to be fading for some of my colleagues. Indeed, there appears to be an effort to further rig the system in favor of elites, this time through the Bankruptcy code. We must stop this effort cold in its tracks. Before we make changes to the Bankruptcy code, we should ensure that a thorough analysis is conducted so we have facts at hand. If anything, we should be seeking to restore fairness and balance to the Bankruptcy code, and this is what my legislation strives for. Specifically, my bill directs the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research to do two things: work hand in hand with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Executive Office for United States Trustees to ensure that bankruptcy judges have, on an ongoing basis, the necessary financial expertise to oversee the orderly resolution of a failed mega bank; and update the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' post- crisis review of the Bankruptcy Code's ability to resolve complex financial institutions and make recommendations to Congress regarding changes that would strengthen financial stability in the United States. Second, my legislation permits the federal agencies that supervise large complex financial institutions to offer their advice and expertise to the bankruptcy court whenever a mega bank files for bankruptcy. This is important because these Federal agencies can assist the court in deciphering complex financial products while also providing the court with an independent assessment of how the court's decisions could affect financial stability in the United States. Lastly, my legislation directs our financial regulators and experts to do the necessary homework to justify proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Some proposed changes have drawn praise, and others have drawn concern. For example, should Wall Street banks still be able to cut to the front of the line and take more than their fair share, while ordinary creditors, such as employees and customers, have to wait in the back of the line? When a jumbo bank gets in trouble, why should those customers who place the riskiest bets, such as large Wall Street hedge funds, get paid back in full while ordinary customers may not get paid back at all? Should shareholders be prevented from holding the mega bank's board of directors accountable for most actions, when a mega bank files for bankruptcy? Is it really possible for a trillion- dollar jumbo bank to be processed through bankruptcy safely in just 48 hours without hurting our economy? Is it fair that ordinary creditors, such as small businesses, who are owed their hard earned dollars, would be given virtually no notice of a mega bank's bankruptcy, making it nearly impossible for them to fight for their rights? These are important, incredibly complex, questions that need thorough answers. Many of my colleagues have called for greater deliberation and analysis before enacting legislation. My legislation heeds this call. Let's take a moment to ensure that we've really done our homework so that we can all be confident that we're really accomplishing what we're aiming to do: making our financial system safer and restoring fairness and balance to the Bankruptcy Code, especially for hardworking ordinary Americans. I thank Senator Brown, Senator Merkley, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Blumenthal for joining me in introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act. I also thank the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Americans for Financial Reform, Harvard Law School Professor Mark Roe, Delaware Law School Professor Bruce Grohsgal, and MIT Professor Simon Johnson for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for action on this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act, with the goals of bolstering financial stability in the United States and requiring the necessary analysis to assess the consequences of potential changes we might make in the future to the Bankruptcy Code. One of the many lessons that we learned from the financial crisis is that reckless Wall Street behavior can have devastating consequences on middle class Americans, too many of whom lost their jobs, their nest eggs, and their homes. Statistics bear this out. Nationally, over 750,000 jobs per month were lost between January and April 2009. In Rhode Island, over 1,800 jobs per month were lost during this same period. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped from an average of 13,677.89 in July 2007 to an average of 7,235.47 in March 2009, resulting in a 47.1 percent loss for many families who for years had set aside hard earned paychecks for emergencies, college tuitions, and retirements. Nationwide, there were nearly 7.5 million home foreclosures and short sales between July 2007 and November 2014. Unfortunately, the impacts remain to this day for some of our neighbors in Rhode Island and throughout the country as they continue to look for a decent paying job or are faced with gut-wrenching financial decisions like whether to turn the heat off or to skip feeding the family another day just to make ends meet. That lesson of how many of our neighbors suffered due to the sins of the rich and powerful seems to be fading for some of my colleagues. Indeed, there appears to be an effort to further rig the system in favor of elites, this time through the Bankruptcy code. We must stop this effort cold in its tracks. Before we make changes to the Bankruptcy code, we should ensure that a thorough analysis is conducted so we have facts at hand. If anything, we should be seeking to restore fairness and balance to the Bankruptcy code, and this is what my legislation strives for. Specifically, my bill directs the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research to do two things: work hand in hand with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Executive Office for United States Trustees to ensure that bankruptcy judges have, on an ongoing basis, the necessary financial expertise to oversee the orderly resolution of a failed mega bank; and update the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' post- crisis review of the Bankruptcy Code's ability to resolve complex financial institutions and make recommendations to Congress regarding changes that would strengthen financial stability in the United States. Second, my legislation permits the federal agencies that supervise large complex financial institutions to offer their advice and expertise to the bankruptcy court whenever a mega bank files for bankruptcy. This is important because these Federal agencies can assist the court in deciphering complex financial products while also providing the court with an independent assessment of how the court's decisions could affect financial stability in the United States. Lastly, my legislation directs our financial regulators and experts to do the necessary homework to justify proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Some proposed changes have drawn praise, and others have drawn concern. For example, should Wall Street banks still be able to cut to the front of the line and take more than their fair share, while ordinary creditors, such as employees and customers, have to wait in the back of the line? When a jumbo bank gets in trouble, why should those customers who place the riskiest bets, such as large Wall Street hedge funds, get paid back in full while ordinary customers may not get paid back at all? Should shareholders be prevented from holding the mega bank's board of directors accountable for most actions, when a mega bank files for bankruptcy? Is it really possible for a trillion- dollar jumbo bank to be processed through bankruptcy safely in just 48 hours without hurting our economy? Is it fair that ordinary creditors, such as small businesses, who are owed their hard earned dollars, would be given virtually no notice of a mega bank's bankruptcy, making it nearly impossible for them to fight for their rights? These are important, incredibly complex, questions that need thorough answers. Many of my colleagues have called for greater deliberation and analysis before enacting legislation. My legislation heeds this call. Let's take a moment to ensure that we've really done our homework so that we can all be confident that we're really accomplishing what we're aiming to do: making our financial system safer and restoring fairness and balance to the Bankruptcy Code, especially for hardworking ordinary Americans. I thank Senator Brown, Senator Merkley, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Blumenthal for joining me in introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act. I also thank the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Americans for Financial Reform, Harvard Law School Professor Mark Roe, Delaware Law School Professor Bruce Grohsgal, and MIT Professor Simon Johnson for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for action on this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the life and significant accomplishments of Henry Shelton, a tireless advocate for Rhode Island's poorest citizens, who passed away on September 21, 2016. Our world is a better place because Henry was in it, and he will be sorely missed. Born and raised in Central Falls, RI, Henry served as a priest in Providence, where he began his lifelong fight for those in need. After leaving the priesthood, he led the Coalition for Consumer Justice and founded the Pawtucket-based George Wiley Center, where he served as director for over 30 years. Henry empowered low-income Rhode Islanders to push for social change and policies to alleviate poverty and provide access to basic needs. He truly put the word ``active'' into activism. From protesting in the street to arguing in the courtroom, Henry made a difference in the causes he championed, including securing bus passes for the elderly, working to provide free school breakfast and summer meals for low-income children, and promoting access to unemployment services, to name a few. Henry Shelton's legacy is perhaps most felt in his work to lower utility costs and to help low-income families with their energy bills so that their heat or electricity was not turned off. New England winters can be particularly brutal. Henry understood that paying utility bills is a real struggle for those who are trying to make ends meet. His mission was to make sure that no one was left out in the cold. He was a vocal supporter of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which I too have long championed, to provide vital assistance to help low-income households, seniors, and veterans pay their energy bills. Accessing this assistance is not automatic and each year individuals have to prove their eligibility. That takes a lot of work by dedicated individuals on the ground who help people enroll and get the assistance they need. Henry was unrelenting in working for each and every person who needed help. Henry played this essential role by bringing LIHEAP funds and protections across the finish line. He worked to make sure families understood their rights, could navigate the utility assistance process, and were able to access payment forgiveness plans when needed. Indeed, Henry was such an effective advocate that when Rhode Island State lawmakers passed a bill allowing for a utility payment-forgiveness program for low-income, disabled, and elderly Rhode Islanders, they named it the Henry Shelton Act. Henry received a number of awards for his work, including the Providence Newspaper Guild's John F. Kiffney community service award, which is given to a Rhode Islander ``whose caring, courage and humor light the way for those who follow,'' and he was inducted into the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame in 2015. Despite his many accomplishments, Henry was exceptionally humble, never seeking praise or recognition for his work to help others. I ask that my colleagues join me in remembering Henry Shelton, who was kind, caring, courageous, and passionate about helping and empowering those who were less fortunate. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Shelton's wife, Carol; his sisters Rosemarie and Catherine; his five children, Joseph, James, Patrick, Eamon, and Caitlin; and grandchildren, Benjamin, Mathew, Henry, Emmett, Frederic, and Felicity. I know that Henry's constant example of good will and selflessness will continue to sustain and inspire his family and all of us.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Cochran, and Gillibrand in introducing legislation to renew the law that expands the reach of libraries and museums and enables them to better serve their communities. These vital institutions educate, inform, engage, and connect people from all walks of life. This year marks several milestones for library and museum programs at the Federal level. Sixty years ago, in 1956, Congress passed legislation to establish the first Federal program of direct support to public libraries, with the goal of expanding access. Forty years ago, in 1976, Congress established the Institute of Museum Services to provide assistance to museums, including for exhibits and conservation, educational programs, and professional curatorial training. In the following years, the programs were updated and renewed many times to addressing evolving needs for library and museum services. Twenty years ago, in 1996, Congress passed the Museum and Library Services Act, establishing the Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to house the library and museum programs together for the first time. My predecessor, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, a great champion for expanding educational and cultural opportunities to all communities, was instrumental in passage of this law. The Senate Committee report for this bill noted the ``great potential in an Institute that is focused on the combined roles that libraries and museums play in our community life, in support of research, learning, and entertainment, and in support of American culture and history.'' We have seen this borne out over the last 20 years. Through a relatively modest Federal investment, IMLS has helped build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the State and local levels. IMLS has been the source of major Federal support for the full range of libraries, including public, academic, research, special, and tribal libraries--123,000 across the country--and the full range of museums, including art, history, science and technology, children's, historical societies, tribal, planetariums, botanic gardens, and zoos--35,000 across the country. We have seen access to libraries and museums increase all the while these institutions have striven to meet the ever-evolving needs of their communities. In Rhode Island, IMLS funding for the grants to States program under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, has supported improved online resources; literacy initiatives, including a summer reading program; and the provision of talking books to residents with visual impairments and disabilities. This year, Providence Public Library was awarded a nearly $530,000 National Leadership Grant to provide underserved teens with learning opportunities, leading to digital credentials, academic credit, exposure to work, and entry into education and career pathways. IMLS has also supported and elevated the work of Rhode Island museums. I was so pleased that the Tomaquag Museum in Exeter was one of ten recipients nationally to be recognized with a 2016 National Medal for Museum and Library Service. The Providence Children's Museum and the Preservation Society of Newport County also received grants to support their work this year. I have been proud to continue the work of Senator Pell in supporting robust funding for libraries and museums and authoring the last two renewals of the Museum and Library Services Act. I have seen firsthand the impact libraries and museums have had on our communities in Rhode Island and the residents and visitors they serve, making our State stronger because of the services and experiences that these institutions provide. The museum and library communities have provided invaluable input in helping us craft this bipartisan legislation. I would especially like to thank the Rhode Island library community for hosting me at libraries across the state and convening a roundtable discussion in June to delve deeper into the programs libraries are providing and ways to improve how they serve their communities. In response to the input and insight offered by the library and museum communities, the bill we are introducing today, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2016, requires the use of data-driven tools to measure the impact and maximize the effectiveness of library and museum services and better tailor services to address and meet community needs. The legislation provides for technical support and assistance to help the library and museum fields with their data collection responsibilities. It also enhances IMLS's collaborative efforts with an expanded number of Federal agencies in order to fully leverage the benefits libraries and museums provide to Americans. This legislation also amends LSTA to highlight the role of libraries as community hubs, through services and programming in such areas as literacy, education, lifelong learning, workforce development, economic and business development, digital literacy skills, critical thinking, financial literacy skills, and new and emerging technology. The bill provides greater emphasis on recruiting and training of the next generation of library and information science professionals from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds. Additionally, it seeks to focus leadership grant funds on activities that serve a range of library types and geographically diverse areas; have evaluation, analysis, and dissemination components; and involve, impact, or have future applicability in libraries. In 1964, when signing an expansion of library programs into law, President Lyndon Baines Johnson remarked, ``Libraries are not just for the young and the curious about an exciting world. They are not just for our youth preparing for their careers. They are not just for busy people looking for information to do their jobs. Libraries are for everyone and therein lies their real value.'' The changes we are contemplating in this reauthorization bill are designed to continue fulfilling this promise and update the law not only to account for activities that are currently underway but also to look ahead and provide flexibility for libraries to constantly respond to changing demands and missions. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2016 also builds on the 40- year legacy of Federal support for improving and expanding access to museum services. It addresses the critical need for professional development and recruiting and preparing the next generation of museum professionals, emphasizing diversity so that museums better reflect the communities they serve. The legislation also highlights the educational role of museums and the diverse ways that museums engage their communities, and it encourages partnerships with other agencies, professional networks, and community-based organizations to expand and enhance access to museum services. At this year's National Medal for Museum and Library Service ceremony, First Lady Michelle Obama captured why it is so vital that we continue to support libraries and museums on a national level: ``Day after day, year after year, our nation's libraries and museums are here for our communities. And at the end of the day, you all don't measure your impact by the number of books on your shelves or pieces in your exhibits, but by the young people you inspire, the lives you transform, and the impact you have every single day on your communities.'' The Museum and Library Services Act of 2016 will continue our tradition of supporting our communities through their museums and libraries. It has the support of the American Library Association and the American Alliance of Museums and many of their affiliated associations. I thank my colleagues for supporting this endeavor and look forward to more joining us as we work together to urge swift action to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Cochran, and Gillibrand in introducing legislation to renew the law that expands the reach of libraries and museums and enables them to better serve their communities. These vital institutions educate, inform, engage, and connect people from all walks of life. This year marks several milestones for library and museum programs at the Federal level. Sixty years ago, in 1956, Congress passed legislation to establish the first Federal program of direct support to public libraries, with the goal of expanding access. Forty years ago, in 1976, Congress established the Institute of Museum Services to provide assistance to museums, including for exhibits and conservation, educational programs, and professional curatorial training. In the following years, the programs were updated and renewed many times to addressing evolving needs for library and museum services. Twenty years ago, in 1996, Congress passed the Museum and Library Services Act, establishing the Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to house the library and museum programs together for the first time. My predecessor, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, a great champion for expanding educational and cultural opportunities to all communities, was instrumental in passage of this law. The Senate Committee report for this bill noted the ``great potential in an Institute that is focused on the combined roles that libraries and museums play in our community life, in support of research, learning, and entertainment, and in support of American culture and history.'' We have seen this borne out over the last 20 years. Through a relatively modest Federal investment, IMLS has helped build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the State and local levels. IMLS has been the source of major Federal support for the full range of libraries, including public, academic, research, special, and tribal libraries--123,000 across the country--and the full range of museums, including art, history, science and technology, children's, historical societies, tribal, planetariums, botanic gardens, and zoos--35,000 across the country. We have seen access to libraries and museums increase all the while these institutions have striven to meet the ever-evolving needs of their communities. In Rhode Island, IMLS funding for the grants to States program under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, has supported improved online resources; literacy initiatives, including a summer reading program; and the provision of talking books to residents with visual impairments and disabilities. This year, Providence Public Library was awarded a nearly $530,000 National Leadership Grant to provide underserved teens with learning opportunities, leading to digital credentials, academic credit, exposure to work, and entry into education and career pathways. IMLS has also supported and elevated the work of Rhode Island museums. I was so pleased that the Tomaquag Museum in Exeter was one of ten recipients nationally to be recognized with a 2016 National Medal for Museum and Library Service. The Providence Children's Museum and the Preservation Society of Newport County also received grants to support their work this year. I have been proud to continue the work of Senator Pell in supporting robust funding for libraries and museums and authoring the last two renewals of the Museum and Library Services Act. I have seen firsthand the impact libraries and museums have had on our communities in Rhode Island and the residents and visitors they serve, making our State stronger because of the services and experiences that these institutions provide. The museum and library communities have provided invaluable input in helping us craft this bipartisan legislation. I would especially like to thank the Rhode Island library community for hosting me at libraries across the state and convening a roundtable discussion in June to delve deeper into the programs libraries are providing and ways to improve how they serve their communities. In response to the input and insight offered by the library and museum communities, the bill we are introducing today, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2016, requires the use of data-driven tools to measure the impact and maximize the effectiveness of library and museum services and better tailor services to address and meet community needs. The legislation provides for technical support and assistance to help the library and museum fields with their data collection responsibilities. It also enhances IMLS's collaborative efforts with an expanded number of Federal agencies in order to fully leverage the benefits libraries and museums provide to Americans. This legislation also amends LSTA to highlight the role of libraries as community hubs, through services and programming in such areas as literacy, education, lifelong learning, workforce development, economic and business development, digital literacy skills, critical thinking, financial literacy skills, and new and emerging technology. The bill provides greater emphasis on recruiting and training of the next generation of library and information science professionals from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds. Additionally, it seeks to focus leadership grant funds on activities that serve a range of library types and geographically diverse areas; have evaluation, analysis, and dissemination components; and involve, impact, or have future applicability in libraries. In 1964, when signing an expansion of library programs into law, President Lyndon Baines Johnson remarked, ``Libraries are not just for the young and the curious about an exciting world. They are not just for our youth preparing for their careers. They are not just for busy people looking for information to do their jobs. Libraries are for everyone and therein lies their real value.'' The changes we are contemplating in this reauthorization bill are designed to continue fulfilling this promise and update the law not only to account for activities that are currently underway but also to look ahead and provide flexibility for libraries to constantly respond to changing demands and missions. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2016 also builds on the 40- year legacy of Federal support for improving and expanding access to museum services. It addresses the critical need for professional development and recruiting and preparing the next generation of museum professionals, emphasizing diversity so that museums better reflect the communities they serve. The legislation also highlights the educational role of museums and the diverse ways that museums engage their communities, and it encourages partnerships with other agencies, professional networks, and community-based organizations to expand and enhance access to museum services. At this year's National Medal for Museum and Library Service ceremony, First Lady Michelle Obama captured why it is so vital that we continue to support libraries and museums on a national level: ``Day after day, year after year, our nation's libraries and museums are here for our communities. And at the end of the day, you all don't measure your impact by the number of books on your shelves or pieces in your exhibits, but by the young people you inspire, the lives you transform, and the impact you have every single day on your communities.'' The Museum and Library Services Act of 2016 will continue our tradition of supporting our communities through their museums and libraries. It has the support of the American Library Association and the American Alliance of Museums and many of their affiliated associations. I thank my colleagues for supporting this endeavor and look forward to more joining us as we work together to urge swift action to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Career and Technical Education for Adult Learners or the CTE for All Act with my colleague, Senator Baldwin. Our legislation addresses the critical need to expand educational opportunities for working adults with low academic skills. A Department of Education update of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, 2013 Survey of Adult Skills confirms that a significant number of working adults in the United States have low literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving skills. Specifically, 14 percent have low literacy skills; 23 percent have low numeracy skills; and 62 percent have low digital problem solving skills. Moreover, the skills gap has no age barrier as half of low skilled working adults are under the age of 45. Our ability to accelerate the economic momentum we have seen in the latest income data from the U.S. Census Bureau will depend, in large part, on our commitment to providing education and training opportunities to low-skilled adults. These workers are concentrated in fields such as construction, health care, manufacturing, and hospitality. Expanding career and technical education opportunities to these workers could enhance their career opportunities and strengthen their earning potential, fueling economic productivity and growth for the future. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly half of low-skilled workers are not engaged in formal or non-formal learning opportunities. The CTE for All Act aims to change that by ensuring that there are pathways for adult learners in career and technical education programs. Specifically, our legislation will ensure that programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act are aligned with adult education programs and industry sector partnerships authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The CTE for All Act will require that the state director for adult education is consulted in the development of the statewide plan for career and technical education. The bill adds low-skilled adults to the special populations to be served in career and technical education programs and will allow states to report separate performance indicators for adult career and technical education students. The legislation would also allow adult education providers that offer integrated education and training programs to receive career and technical education funding. Additionally, the legislation encourages career and technical education programs to include work experiences for their students. We have worked with the adult education community and other stakeholders in developing this legislation. We are pleased to have the support of the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, the Commission on Adult Basic Education, the National Skills Coalition, the Center for Law and Social Policy, CLASP, and the National Council of Adult Learning. We are stronger as a nation when every person--no matter their starting point--has the opportunity to develop their skills and reach their potential. The CTE for All Act will strengthen the ladder of opportunity for low-skilled adults who work hard every day to provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work with us to include these provisions in the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.