Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act, which I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy, will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Unfortunately, even after the financial crisis that crippled the economy, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street. Without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I fear this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. The existing regime for securities law violations limits by statute the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, can fine an institution or individual. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that the reason for the low settlement amount was a statutory prohibition from levying a larger penalty. The bipartisan bill Senator Grassley and I are introducing updates and strengthens the SEC's civil penalties statute. It aims to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum civil monetary penalties permitted by statute, directly linking the size of the maximum penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would give the SEC more options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``tier three,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the bill would also give the SEC additional options to obtain greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also addresses the disconcerting trend of repeat offenders on Wall Street through two provisions. The first would allow the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the preceding five years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those that violate existing federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These two changes would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. More than half of all U.S. households own securities. They deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will give the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency and confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act, which I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy, will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Unfortunately, even after the financial crisis that crippled the economy, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street. Without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I fear this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. The existing regime for securities law violations limits by statute the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, can fine an institution or individual. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that the reason for the low settlement amount was a statutory prohibition from levying a larger penalty. The bipartisan bill Senator Grassley and I are introducing updates and strengthens the SEC's civil penalties statute. It aims to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum civil monetary penalties permitted by statute, directly linking the size of the maximum penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would give the SEC more options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``tier three,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the bill would also give the SEC additional options to obtain greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also addresses the disconcerting trend of repeat offenders on Wall Street through two provisions. The first would allow the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the preceding five years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those that violate existing federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These two changes would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. More than half of all U.S. households own securities. They deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will give the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency and confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, as the Republican leader indicated pursuant to unanimous consent, I will shortly be offering a motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act regarding the inappropriate use of overseas contingency operations funding in this bill. The motion to instruct I am offering today directs the NDAA conferees to ``insist that the final conference report fully fund the President's budget request for the Department of Defense, including $534.3 billion in base budget funding and $50.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations or OCO budget funding, thereby supporting the bipartisan view that the funding caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 should be eliminated or increased in proportionally equal amounts for the revised security and nonsecurity spending categories.'' This motion to instruct is consistent with the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for defense, which assumed a resolution to the Budget Control Act, or BCA, dilemma that we have been trying to address. If this BCA situation is resolved, we can remove the threat of sequestration on both the defense and domestic spending. Unfortunately, the bill had to rely upon a budgetary--and it has been described by many people--gimmick by transferring $39 billion from the base budget request for enduring military requirements to the OCO budget, leaving a base budget that is just below BCA levels in order to avoid triggering sequestration. In the absence of a resolution to the spending caps in the BCA, the administration has stated that any legislation that contributes to locking in massive cuts to nondefense departments and agencies--such as this one--will be subject to a veto. Now one of my concerns is, when we use this device or gimmick this year, it will pave the way to use it next year and the following year and year after that. So we will have this enduring imbalance between security spending in the Department of Defense and nonsecurity spending in non-Defense Department agencies and a full range of governmental spending. Abusing OCO is completely contrary to the intent of BCA. The BCA was designed to impose proportionately equal cuts on defense and nondefense discretionary spending to force a bipartisan compromise. This approach unilaterally reneges on that bipartisan agreement. OCO and emergency funding are outside the budget caps for a reason. They are for the costs of ongoing military operations and to respond to other unforeseen events like natural disasters. To suddenly ignore the true purpose of OCO and treat it as a budgetary device or slush fund to skirt the BCA is an unacceptable use for this important tool for our warfighters. Just to highlight how this OCO gimmick skews defense spending, consider the amount of OCO in relation to the number of deployed troops. Most Americans have a very commonsense approach. If we have lots of troops engaged in operations overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, then we need lots of OCO funding as well. In 2008--the height of our nation's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 187,000 troops deployed--we spent approximately $1 million in OCO per troop. Under this bill, we would spend approximately $9 million in OCO for each of our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, this approach, which circumvents the spirit of the law, is not fiscally responsible or an honest accounting nor is it consistent with the notion of why we created OCO in the first place, to support troops overseas engaged in overseas operations. There is another point. True national security requires that non-DOD departments and agencies also receive relief from BCA caps. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other governmental departments and agencies, including State, Justice, and Homeland Security. In the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony on the essential role of other government agencies in ensuring our national defense remains strong. The Department of Defense's share of the burden would surely grow if these agencies are not funded adequately. The BCA caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is neatly divided into security and nonsecurity spending. Let's be clear, essential national security functions are performed by governmental agencies other than the Department of Defense. As retired Marine Corps General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' With regard to the threat from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, Secretary of Defense Carter told the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that ``the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, other agencies that are critical to protecting us against ISIL and other threats, they need resources too. And so that's another reason why I appeal for an overall budget perspective. . . . I really appeal for that, not just for my own department, but for the rest of the national security establishment, I think it's critical.'' According to a poll earlier this year, 83 percent of Americans think ISIL is the No. 1 threat to the United States. It is notable that of the administration's nine lines of effort to counter ISIL, only two, the security and intelligence efforts, reside within the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and intelligence community. The remaining seven elements for our counter-ISIL strategy rely heavily on our civilian departments and agencies. For example, supporting effective governance in Iraq. We need our diplomatic as well as political experts at the State Department to engage with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and minority communities in Iraq to promote reconciliation in Iraq and build political unity among the Iraqi people. Building partner capacity. The coalition is building the capabilities and capacity of our foreign partners in the region to wage a long-term campaign against ISIL, much of what is being carried out by the State Department and USAID. Disrupting ISIL's finances requires the State Department and Treasury Department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector to ensure that our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and enforced. Exposing ISIL's true nature. Our strategic communications campaign requires a truly whole-of-government effort, including the State Department, Voice of America, USAID, and others. The Republican approach to funding our strategic communications strategy is a part-of- government plan, not a whole-of-government plan, unless we recognize that we have to make adjustments in the BCA caps for every agency in the government. Another aspect is disrupting the flow of foreign fighters. These foreign fighters are the lifeblood of ISIL. Yet the State Department and key components of the Department of Homeland Security are facing severe cuts, undermining ongoing work with partner nations to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq and to protect our borders here at home. The sixth line, protecting the homeland. The vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security falls under nonsecurity BCA caps. This further demonstrates that the Republican plan is a misnomer, a gimmick, and an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the American people. They are very critical to our security here at home. Yet they are in that ``nondefense'' part of the budget. Humanitarian support is critical. It is even more critical as you look at the papers and see there is a huge number of people coming out of Syria. Military commanders will routinely tell you that the efforts of the State Department, USAID, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance is critical to our campaign, none of which are considered security activities under the Budget Control Act. Taken together, this proposal, which is embedded in the underlying legislation, could compromise our broader campaign against ISIL and deprive significant elements of our government of the resources we need to do the job of protecting the American people. In another respect, adding funds to OCO does not solve and sometimes complicates the DOD's budgetary problems. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term military strategy, which requires the DOD to focus at least 5 years into the future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does not provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when building its 5-year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified, ``We need to fix the base budget . . . we won't have the certainty we need'' if there is a year-by-year OCO fix. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Carter told the Armed Services Committee, ``It's embarrassing that we cannot, in successive years now, pull ourselves together before an overall budget approach that allows us to do what we need to do, which is . . . program in a multiyear manner, not in a one-year-at-a-time manner.'' Abuse of OCO in this massive way risks undermining support for a critical mechanism used to fund the increased costs of overseas conflicts. We have to have a disciplined system for estimating the cost and funding the employment of a trained and ready force. The men and women of our military volunteer to protect and are overseas fighting for American ideals, including good education, economic opportunity, and safe communities. Efforts to support all of these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies also receive relief from BCA caps. Our young men and women who are sacrificing their lives overseas, not just to defeat the enemy in the field but to give opportunity for hope and a chance here at home for their brothers and sisters, for their aunts and uncles. Our servicemembers and their families rely on many of the services provided by non-DOD departments, including veterans employment services, transition assistance, housing and homeless support provided by various civilian departments and agencies, impact aid to local school districts administered by the Department of Education, the school lunch program provided by the Department of Agriculture, lifesaving medical research on issues such as traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress, and suicide prevention, supported by the National Institutes of Health, health care for retirees and disabled individuals under Medicare, Medicaid services for parents, including military parents and children with special needs. All of these programs that benefit directly men and women in uniform and their families would be restricted, and I don't think that is why they are risking their lives, to see these programs that are helpful to them unnecessarily cut back. Our national security is also inherently tied to our economic security. The President underscored this point on Monday when he said: The reason we have the best military in the world is, first and foremost, because we have got the best troops in history, but it's also because we've got a strong economy and we've got a well-educated population and we've got an incredible research operation and universities that allow us to create new products that then can be translated into our military superiority around the world. We shortchange those, we're going to be less secure. The NDAA has been accused of not being a funding bill. So we don't have to worry about the budgetary complications. But indeed we do. The stated purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities for the Department of Defense. It is one of the few bills we do every year to directly authorize appropriations. So it is intimately tied to the appropriations, to BCA, and to all of the issues I have talked about. Indeed, we have said--and the committee has said repeatedly--that we are authorizing money. It is not just suggesting things to do but actually providing real money to the Department of Defense. If we do that, I think we have to do it in a way that does not use this OCO exception this year--and, unfortunately, in the years to come, if we let it happen this year--but that we are transparent, clear, and we put the money in the base budget and we move forward. I think it is clearly within the scope of the conference. That is why I will be offering this motion to instruct. Everyone I talk to, on both sides of the aisle, with very rare exception, will make an individual strident pitch that we have to fix BCA, that this is not the best approach. I heard that this morning when we had General Dunford before the committee--on both sides of the aisle: These BCA caps are not the right way to fund our national defense and not the right way to fund other elements of government. We can disagree on funding levels, but there seems to be a strong consensus that the BCA is not working for the benefit of the American people and we have to fix it. Yet we are not fixing it in the legislation that is before us nor are we doing things to help leverage such a discussion and to help us to come together to do what we all claim we want to do, which is to remove those arbitrary caps, avoid sequestration, and contribute to a whole-government approach--not just to national security but to economic prosperity, to educational opportunity. All of that has to be done not by using these budgetary loopholes not designed for the purpose they are being used for but by sitting down and coming up with sensible legislation. We did it before with the great work of Senator Murray and Congressman Paul Ryan, and we have to do it again. So I will urge my colleagues to vote in favor, obviously, when this comes up--this motion to instruct--so we send the right message to our conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct conferees which is at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this motion represents what we have heard from the Secretary of Defense and all of our uniformed leaders in the military who are saying that we should budget appropriately, put long- term defense needs in the base budget--$534 billion--and reserve OCO for what it was intended to be--overseas operations. But because of the Budget Control Act, we are using OCO as the device to avoid real budgeting and giving the Department of Defense the real long-term resources it needs. Not only does this represent what the Department of Defense desires, but it also represents what we need to defend the American people. We need more than just the Department of Defense. We need Homeland Security. We need the State Department. We need Treasury. We need everyone to defend this country. This approach would begin the discussion and debate, I hope, to get relief from the BCA to move forward and to deal with the threats facing this country in a rational, logical way.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge all of my colleagues to support the Reed-Cochran amendment to encourage States and school districts to integrate school library programs into their plans for improving student academic achievement. I would first like to thank Senator Cochran for his longstanding partnership in supporting school libraries. He has been a steadfast champion for ensuring that students have access to these vital resources. Fifty years ago, when President Lyndon Johnson urged Congress to enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he specifically called for an investment in school libraries, saying that school libraries were simply ``limping along'' and insisting that we do better. Sadly, this ``limping along'' is still true for too many communities in our United States. This spring, the Washington Post ran articles on the inequitable access to school libraries in public schools in our Nation's Capital, reporting that one school library in a wealthy part of town had 28,000 books in a library that spanned two floors, while 12 miles away, in a school in a poorer part of the town, the school library had only 300 books along two walls. If that is not a stark example of one of the things we hope we can fix through this act, I cannot think of anything more direct and to the point. Recently, noted author James Patterson made a pledge to help school libraries. More than 28,000 applications came in. One librarian reported that school libraries in her State had not received any funding for three-quarters of a decade and that their collections and equipment were out of date and in disrepair. I suspect she is not alone in making such a report. We see this neglect despite the fact that evidence shows that effective school library programs, staffed by a certified school librarian, have a positive impact on student achievement. While I would like to see a much more robust school library-focused initiative included in the reauthorization, along the lines of the bill I introduced with Senator Cochran, I am very pleased that the underlying bill includes an authorization for competitive grants to help high-need school districts strengthen and enhance effective library programs. However, we need to do more to encourage States and school districts to integrate school library programs into their overall instructional programs. Effective school library programs are essential supports to educational success. If you understand how to use the library in school, that is not a skill that goes away; in fact, it will be a skill for the rest of your life that you will use time and time again, not only for your pleasure but for your progress and the progress of your family. Knowing how to find and use information is an essential skill for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone those skills. The Reed-Cochran amendment will encourage States and school districts to ensure that students have access to effective school library programs. Once again, I thank my colleague, Senator Cochran. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an amendment that I am offering with Senator Kirk, Senator Brown, and Senator Baldwin, which would establish an accountability mechanism for student access to the core resources necessary for learning. First, I wish to thank Senators Kirk, Brown, Baldwin, and others for helping with this very important matter. More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, one of the greatest challenges still facing this Nation is stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich--in fact, really the very rich--get richer while middle-class and low-income families have lost ground. We see disparities in opportunities starting at birth and growing over a lifetime. With more than one in five school-age children living in families in poverty and roughly half of our public school population eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches because they come from low-income families, we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that fails to provide the resources and opportunities for the children who need them the most. When President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law 50 years ago, he described education as the ``only valid passport from poverty.'' He noted: From our very beginnings as a nation, we have felt a fierce commitment to the ideal of education for everyone. It fixed itself into our democratic creed. I believe this amendment will help us stay true to that ideal. There are other amendments we will consider that, frankly, will do just the opposite, such as those that would divert scarce resources from public schools to private schools through vouchers or so-called portability amendments that Senator Murray so eloquently spoke about. Rather than transferring resources away from our public education system, the passport to opportunity in our country, we should be doing more to ensure they have adequate resources. We have to do work to achieve real equity in educational opportunity. Survey data from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights showed troubling disparities, such as the fact that Black, Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers. In fact, nationwide one in five high schools lacks a school counselor, and between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the Nation do not offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science, such as algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry. Their curricula are very limited, and, indeed, perhaps inadequate. The Education Law Center reports that a majority of States have unfair funding systems with flat or regressive funding distribution. For these reasons, I introduced the Core Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act, or the CORE Act. Senators Brown and Baldwin were my cosponsors. This bill would establish an accountability mechanism for resource equity. This was the first education bill introduced in this Congress, and we are very proud of that. Holding our educational system accountable for both results and resources is paramount. The No Child Left Behind Act looked at results, outcomes, testing, and measurement. What it failed to grasp is that we need resources also. We need the inputs. The Every Child Achieves Act, the legislation we are discussing today, includes important transparency on resource equity. I thank Senators Alexander and Murray for that. It requires States to report on key measures of school quality beyond student achievement on statewide assessments, including student access to experienced and effective educators, access to rigorous and advanced course work, availability of career and technical educational opportunities, and safe and healthy school learning environments. However, reporting alone will not ensure that students get the resources they need and deserve. I commend the reporting. I think it is a necessary but not quite sufficient measure. I am pleased to offer this opportunity dashboard of core resources amendment with Senators Kirk, Baldwin, and Brown. This amendment has the support of dozens of national organizations. Specifically, our amendment will require States to develop and report on measures of access to critical education resources, identify disparities in access for districts, schools, and student subgroups, develop plans with school districts to address disparities in access to critical educational resources, and include the opportunity dashboard of core resources on the State report card so everyone will know where the resources are, where they are going, and how we are making our commitment to an equitable and excellent education for every American child. This amendment has bipartisan support, and, more importantly, broad support in the communities across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes to the floor for a vote. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, let me just state that this legislation before us is of vital national importance, and I would like to commend Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray for their commitment to an open and inclusive debate. They and their staffs have been unfailingly responsive, helpful, and thoughtful throughout the process. I was a long-standing member of the education committee, having served on the Education and Labor Committee in the other body, and on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for 14 years in this body. And I have had the privilege of working with my colleagues over the last two reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. So, again, I must commend Senators Alexander and Murray for the extraordinary work they have done and also my colleague Senator Whitehouse, who has been a major contributor to this effort. I am hopeful and confident, because of the leadership of Senators Alexander and Murray, that we will reach a strong bipartisan outcome on this very important piece of legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with the committee on issues that are very important. The fair and equitable access to the core resources for learning, access to effective school library programs, professional development for teachers and principals, family engagement, and environmental education are all topics I think are critical, and I am very appreciative my colleagues also thought they were important and gave them very thorough and very fair consideration. I am convinced, if you provide the resources, if you support teachers and principals and you engage families, students will thrive. This legislation reflects that perspective, and I appreciate that very much. Our challenges and our responsibilities are to create and support learning environments that enable young people to hone their talents, discover their skills, and pursue their passions. In some respects, education is about finding a child's talent--letting them find their talent. If you do that, then stand back, they will do wonderful things for themselves, their communities, and this Nation. In fact, our Nation is very much dependent upon education to achieve our noblest ideals. As we create educational opportunities for all, we fulfill the basic aspiration of this country. While we know we still have work to do, I am very pleased at the work that has been done so far by the committee. We are closing the gaps in high school graduation between minority and other students--majority students--but college education gaps are widening, and that is something that must be addressed. The debate we begin today is vital because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not just about elementary schools and high schools, it is about preparing young people for what comes next--for college, postsecondary education, for careers, and for contributions to their communities. We have to start at the beginning to get it right in the middle and in the end. Again, Senators Alexander and Murray have brought this perspective, this bipartisan approach, and I commend them for it. This bill is an improvement over current law. The Every Child Achieves Act maintains the critical transparency and high expectations for all students that were the hallmarks of the No Child Left Behind Act. It does so while updating the parts of the law that have become unworkable and counterproductive, such as the overly prescriptive approach to school improvement and corrective action. I am pleased the Every Child Achieves Act continues Federal support in key areas for building strong and successful schools, including investments in literacy and school library programs, for professional development to strengthen educator effectiveness, and family engagement in education. From the beginning, access to effective school library programs was a critical part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The results from a recent National Center for Education Statistics survey shows there are still gaps in access to school libraries. Effective school library programs are essential supports for educational success. Multiple education and literacy studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student achievement. Now, Senator Cochran and I introduced the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries--SKILLS--Act to ensure that school libraries continue to be a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Every Child Achieves Act recognizes this need by including an authorization to provide funds to high-need school districts to support effective school library programs. Soon we will be voting on an amendment that Senator Cochran and I are offering to further integrate school library programs into the core Elementary and Secondary Education Act formula grant programs. I encourage all our colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment that will support student learning. I am also pleased that the Every Child Achieves Act recognizes the importance of ensuring that disadvantaged children have access to books in their homes from a very early age. Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers. Senator Grassley and I introduced the Prescribe A Book Act to help address this issue, and the Every Child Achieves Act includes some key provisions from this legislation. We also know teachers and principals are two of the most important in-school factors related to school achievement. It is essential that teachers, principals, and other educators have a comprehensive system that supports their professional growth and development starting on day one and continuing throughout their careers. Senator Casey and I introduced the Better Education Support and Training Act to create such a system. Once again, I am extraordinarily pleased that the Every Child Achieves Act includes many of the provisions of that legislation, particularly the focus on equitable access to experienced and effective educators. I remain concerned, however, that the failure to define an ``inexperienced teacher'' will mask inequities and will limit the usefulness of the reporting for parents and communities. I hope we can clarify this issue as we proceed forward. Family engagement is another critical area this bill addresses. I hope we will be able to strengthen these provisions by increasing the resources that school districts dedicate to meaningful, evidence-based family engagement activities and by providing a statewide system of technical assistance that supports these efforts. I have been working with Senators Coons and Bennet on amendments that make these additions to the bill based on the Family Engagement and Education Act that I introduced with Senators Coons and Whitehouse in the past two Congresses. Most fundamental to the question of whether we move closer to achieving our ideals for educational equity and excellence is resources. The grand bargain of the No Child Left Behind Act was greater accountability coupled with greater resources. We have fallen short on accountability for resources. The authorized level for title I for fiscal year 2007 was $25 billion. That is in the No Child Left Behind Act. Today, we are nowhere near that level--at only $14.4 billion. We need to be just as concerned about opportunity gaps as we are about achievement gaps, and that is why the first bill I introduced this Congress was the Core Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence--CORE--Act to establish an accountability mechanism for resource equity. We must look to hold our educational system accountable for both results and for resources. The Every Child Achieves Act includes some of what I proposed in the CORE Act by bringing some long-overdue transparency to resource equity, requiring States to report on key measures of school quality beyond student achievement on statewide assessments, including student access to experienced and effective educators, access to rigorous and advanced course work, availability of career and technical educational opportunities, and safe and healthy school learning environments. However, transparency alone is not enough. I am pleased to be working with Senators Kirk, Baldwin, and Brown on the opportunity dashboard of core resources amendment, which will add further provisions from the CORE Act; namely, some accountability for action on disparities in access to critical educational resources. With more than one in five school-aged children living in families in poverty and roughly half of our public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that fails to provide resources and opportunities for the children who need them the most. Again, I thank Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray for bringing this bill before us so thoughtfully, so carefully, and with so much effort and expertise, and their staffs also. I hope we can work together on this amendment to improve an already excellent bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the 40th anniversary of Cabo Verde's independence, on July 5th, comes just one day after our country's own Independence Day. As we near Cabo Verde's 40th anniversary, this small country of 500,000 merits our recognition for its longstanding ties to the United States and for serving as a beacon for democracy in Africa. While the existence of Cabo Verde's islands was first acknowledged by the Romans, it was not until 1456 that the uninhabited islands were rediscovered and settled by Portuguese explorers. Over the next several hundred years, as a colony of the Portuguese Empire, Cabo Verde was a lucrative trading post between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Towards the end of the 18th century, many Cabo Verdeans came to New England, particularly Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where some found success working in the whaling industry. This immigration strengthened the ties between the United States and Cabo Verde and, in 1818, Cabo Verde became the site of the first U.S. consulate in sub-Saharan Africa. As a result of the 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal, and after centuries of colonial rule, Cabo Verde was able to formally gain independence on July 5, 1975, and soon established diplomatic ties with the United States. Since that time, Cabo Verde has worked for a democratic government. It has made great strides in this regard and, today, Cabo Verde is a leader in good governance, receiving top marks from the Freedom House for political rights and civil liberties. Cabo Verde has also made significant economic and social progress in the past several years. Additionally, given Cabo Verde's strong ties to the United States and our shared commitment to democracy and economic freedom, Cabo Verde was awarded and successfully undertook a Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, compact for private sector, agricultural, and transportation reforms, and is currently implementing a second MCC compact in the areas of water, sanitation, and land management. Moving forward, Cabo Verde can build on these successes to continue to grow its economy as well as strengthen ties to the United States and other allies. Rhode Island is fortunate to have one of the two largest Cabo Verdean-American populations in the country, and continues to be enriched by the heritage and contributions of Cabo Verde. I am very pleased that earlier this month, T.F. Green Airport in Rhode Island began welcoming direct flights from Cabo Verde, which will lead to greater exchange and new opportunities between Rhode Island and Cabo Verde. As we near July 5th, I send my best wishes to all those of Cabo Verdean descent in Rhode Island and throughout the country on the 40th anniversary of Cabo Verde's independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great Rhode Islander, Marguerite K. McKay, who passed away last month at the age of 96. Marguerite Katherine McCrudden was born in Providence on September 15, 1918, and grew up in the Smith Hill neighborhood of the city. One of six children, she attended St. Patrick's High School in Providence and graduated from Bryant College in 1938. Marguerite spent much of her professional life dedicated to the city of Providence. She began her career in the Building Inspector's Office, and later moved to the Providence School Department, where she worked until she retired. Marguerite married Franklin Richard McKay in 1950, and together they had one child, Bernard. Franklin served as a city councilman and city solicitor in Attleboro, MA, and both he and Marguerite were active in the Attleboro community and their church parish, St. John the Evangelist. After Franklin's passing in 1968, Marguerite spent her time living in Barrington, RI, and on Prudence Island in Narragansett Bay. She enjoyed cooking, gardening, swimming, and following politics. In her retirement, she traveled extensively and remained active in her church, St. Luke's in Barrington. In 2005, she moved to Reston, VA to be closer to her family. Marguerite passed away in Reston in May. Her funeral was held on June 20 at her childhood church, St. Patrick's, in the Smith Hill neighborhood of Providence. She was predeceased by her beloved grandson Brendan, who passed away last year. I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to Marguerite's son Bernard and his wife Mary; her grandchildren Patrick, Conor, and Rosemary; her three great-grandchildren; and her two surviving siblings, Cornelius Bernard McCrudden and Mary McCrudden Broome. Marguerite led a life of service to her community, and our State is better for it. I know her example of good will and selflessness will continue to sustain and inspire her family.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, in an effort to decrease the rate of drug overdose deaths, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Markey, and Leahy in introducing the Overdose Prevention Act. Representative Donna Edwards is introducing this bill in the other body. Throughout the country, the death rate from drug overdoses has been rapidly climbing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, and more than 110 Americans died each day from drug overdoses in 2011. More than half of these deaths are attributable to opioids, like prescription pain relievers or heroin. Indeed, this tragic epidemic has hit particularly hard in my home state of Rhode Island, where in 2014, 239 individuals died from drug overdoses. Americans aged 25 to 64 are now more likely to die as a result of drug overdose than from injuries sustained in motor vehicle traffic crashes. While overdoses from illegal drugs persist as a major public health problem, fatal overdoses from prescribed opioid pain medications such as oxycodone account for more than 40 percent of all overdose deaths. It is clear that we must do more to stop these often preventable deaths. Fortunately, the drug naloxone, which has no side effects and no potential for abuse, is widely recognized as an important tool to help prevent drug overdose deaths. Naloxone can rapidly reverse an overdose from heroin and opioid medications if provided in a timely manner. Overdose prevention programs, including those that utilize naloxone, have been credited with saving more than 26,000 lives since 1996, according to the CDC. Opioid abuse and overdose is not an abstract threat found in far-off corners. It is a national public health crisis and it's taking place right here at home in our communities and our neighborhoods. Rhode Island is taking steps to combat this scourge and is leading the way in adopting innovative solutions. Through a ``collaborative practice agreement,'' some Rhode Island pharmacies are dispensing naloxone, along with training about its proper use, to anyone who walks in and requests the treatment, no prescription necessary. In addition, the Rhode Island State Police carry naloxone in every cruiser. The Overdose Prevention Act, which we are introducing today, would complement these efforts and take important steps towards addressing this issue nationally and increasing access to naloxone in our communities. The legislation aims to establish a comprehensive response to this epidemic that emphasizes collaboration between state and federal officials and employs best practices from the medical community, as well as programs and treatments that have been proven effective to combat this startling national trend. This is an emergency and it requires a coordinated and comprehensive response. Specifically, the bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award funding through cooperative agreements to eligible entities--like public health agencies or community-based organizations with expertise in preventing overdose deaths. As a condition of participation, an entity would use the grant to purchase and distribute naloxone, and carry out overdose prevention activities, such as educating and training prescribers, pharmacists, and first responders on how to recognize the signs of an overdose, seek emergency medical help, and administer naloxone and other first aid. As rates of overdose deaths continue to spike, public health agencies, law enforcement, and others are struggling to keep up without clear and timely information about the epidemic. Therefore, the Overdose Prevention Act would also require HHS to take steps to improve surveillance and research of drug overdose deaths, so that public health agencies, law enforcement, and community organizations have an accurate picture of the problem. It would also establish a coordinated federal plan of action to address this epidemic. The Overdose Prevention Act seeks to bring together first responders, medical personnel, addiction treatment specialists, social service providers, and families to help save lives and get at the root of this problem. I am pleased that the Overdose Prevention Act has the support of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Harm Reduction Coalition, and the Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as our cosponsors to urge the rest of our colleagues to join us in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, in an effort to decrease the rate of drug overdose deaths, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Markey, and Leahy in introducing the Overdose Prevention Act. Representative Donna Edwards is introducing this bill in the other body. Throughout the country, the death rate from drug overdoses has been rapidly climbing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, and more than 110 Americans died each day from drug overdoses in 2011. More than half of these deaths are attributable to opioids, like prescription pain relievers or heroin. Indeed, this tragic epidemic has hit particularly hard in my home state of Rhode Island, where in 2014, 239 individuals died from drug overdoses. Americans aged 25 to 64 are now more likely to die as a result of drug overdose than from injuries sustained in motor vehicle traffic crashes. While overdoses from illegal drugs persist as a major public health problem, fatal overdoses from prescribed opioid pain medications such as oxycodone account for more than 40 percent of all overdose deaths. It is clear that we must do more to stop these often preventable deaths. Fortunately, the drug naloxone, which has no side effects and no potential for abuse, is widely recognized as an important tool to help prevent drug overdose deaths. Naloxone can rapidly reverse an overdose from heroin and opioid medications if provided in a timely manner. Overdose prevention programs, including those that utilize naloxone, have been credited with saving more than 26,000 lives since 1996, according to the CDC. Opioid abuse and overdose is not an abstract threat found in far-off corners. It is a national public health crisis and it's taking place right here at home in our communities and our neighborhoods. Rhode Island is taking steps to combat this scourge and is leading the way in adopting innovative solutions. Through a ``collaborative practice agreement,'' some Rhode Island pharmacies are dispensing naloxone, along with training about its proper use, to anyone who walks in and requests the treatment, no prescription necessary. In addition, the Rhode Island State Police carry naloxone in every cruiser. The Overdose Prevention Act, which we are introducing today, would complement these efforts and take important steps towards addressing this issue nationally and increasing access to naloxone in our communities. The legislation aims to establish a comprehensive response to this epidemic that emphasizes collaboration between state and federal officials and employs best practices from the medical community, as well as programs and treatments that have been proven effective to combat this startling national trend. This is an emergency and it requires a coordinated and comprehensive response. Specifically, the bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award funding through cooperative agreements to eligible entities--like public health agencies or community-based organizations with expertise in preventing overdose deaths. As a condition of participation, an entity would use the grant to purchase and distribute naloxone, and carry out overdose prevention activities, such as educating and training prescribers, pharmacists, and first responders on how to recognize the signs of an overdose, seek emergency medical help, and administer naloxone and other first aid. As rates of overdose deaths continue to spike, public health agencies, law enforcement, and others are struggling to keep up without clear and timely information about the epidemic. Therefore, the Overdose Prevention Act would also require HHS to take steps to improve surveillance and research of drug overdose deaths, so that public health agencies, law enforcement, and community organizations have an accurate picture of the problem. It would also establish a coordinated federal plan of action to address this epidemic. The Overdose Prevention Act seeks to bring together first responders, medical personnel, addiction treatment specialists, social service providers, and families to help save lives and get at the root of this problem. I am pleased that the Overdose Prevention Act has the support of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Harm Reduction Coalition, and the Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as our cosponsors to urge the rest of our colleagues to join us in supporting this crucial legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I, too, want to commend the chairman and his staff for extraordinarily diligent, cooperative, and careful work. I am pleased to be here to support this block of amendments. As the chairman noted, we are on the verge of passage of the legislation. Then we will be able to move forward and address other issues. I thank the chairman for his cooperation and his great leadership.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, after almost 3 weeks, we are completing consideration of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. Again, I want to thank Senator McCain for what has largely been a bipartisan, serious consideration of issues important to the Department of Defense and to the national security of the United States. He has led the way, initially with a series of very thoughtful hearings with foreign policy experts setting the context for our debate. Then we listened to our uniformed military leaders and our Defense Department officials. In the process of drafting the legislation, before it went to the subcommittees, there was a collaboration that was inspired by his commitment--which he has always demonstrated--to do what he thought was in the best interest of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. His presence and his leadership, has, I think, brought us to this point where we are getting ready to consider a major piece of legislation on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and of the country. We have considered many issues. We were briefly sidetracked by the cyber amendment. We all understand that the cyber bill is absolutely critical. In fact, I think it has to be addressed as soon as possible. That is probably the next piece of business we should take up in this Senate. But it was brought up in a procedure--in an unexpected way, in a way in which we could not give it the full consideration it deserves. So, once again, I think we should commit ourselves as a Senate to bringing up this bill as rapidly as possible--in fact, I would suggest it as the next major piece of legislation. In the process of considering this National Defense Authorization Act, we brought a bill to the floor which had some very thoughtful and important provisions. Six hundred amendments were filed. We were able to consider many of them, both Republican and Democratic, either through votes on the floor in a very open process or through managers' packages which we put together and approved. We debated on very important issues--interrogation techniques, sexual assault in our military, and U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere. I think these debates and votes ensured that this authorization bill is better than it was when it left the committee. There is, however, one overarching problem that remains with this bill, and it is one that I have persistently pointed to and persistently argued has to be corrected, and it is the fact that the bill is funded through the OCO accounts in a significant way, using an escape valve from the Budget Control Act, which OCO provides exclusively for defense, with some minor deviations for other some national security programs and other agencies, but essentially this is the defense funding mechanism. As a result, what we are confronted with is a bill that is over-reliant upon the overseas contingency account. Ironically, it provides the same level of resources that the President asked for, but instead of putting it in the base budget, it grows OCO from roughly $50 billion to $90 billion, and that is all deficit spending. So this is not a way in which we are improving our fiscal situation; we are just adding $40 billion of deficit spending. The other aspect of this that is so critical is that if we adhere to the Budget Control Act, we will not adequately fund other agencies, and many of these other agencies are as vital to our national security as the Department of Defense--the FBI, Homeland Security, and the State Department. We have had speakers on floor talk about--rightfully so--this huge refugee crisis we are seeing all through the Middle East because of the instability in Iraq and Syria. Those refugees--when we try to help them, that help is typically sent through the State Department, through USAID, through those agencies, and they are still within the sequester caps. As a result, I was very pleased to offer both in the committee and on the floor an amendment that would essentially say: Let's stop for a second. We have this $39 billion of additional OCO spending that we are giving to the Department of Defense because it is not subject to BCA. Before we do that, let's put a fence around it, to put it in colloquial terminology, let's just say that money is there because we recognize that the needs of the Department of Defense are critical and they have to be fulfilled, but it is going to stay there until we fix the underlying issue, in my view, and that is the BCA, the sequestration issues that affect the State Department and every other Department in the government. We had a very good debate. I am thankful to the chairman for encouraging that debate, allowing it to take place, and for it coming to a vote. We lost, 54 to 46. It had strong support on our side of the aisle, but it was a fair and full debate and we lost. The result, though, is that the problem remains. We are in a situation where, if we continue down this pathway, we will see the OCO account as an escape valve for defense while everyone else is subject to sequestration. I don't think that is good. I don't think it is good for defense. I certainly don't think it is good for these other agencies, and it is not good for our overall national security. There are many who say: Don't worry about that. This is just an authorization bill. The appropriations bill is where we will have the appropriate discussion and debate. I think that is going to happen, but my view is that authorizations and appropriations are so closely related that we couldn't ignore one and we couldn't ignore this authorization. So, again, I think we have to recognize that underpinning this authorization, with all of its worthy programs, is this very difficult issue of overreliance on OCO funding. Then there are some who say: Well, even so, it is a 1-year fix. Well, I don't think that is the case at all. I think if we use these types of gimmicks--as some have called them--and accounting tricks once, our tendency to use them again will be there. In fact, once we use it once, it is easier to use it two, three, four, five times. We have had this discussion on the floor, for example, interestingly enough, about how medical research in the Department of Defense went from $25 million or so in 1992 to $13 billion today. Well, the answer is easy. Back then, because we had similar--not identical--arrangements where we capped discretionary domestic spending but uncapped defense spending, people went to where--the chairman referred to the Willie Sutton approach--the money was. It was defense. And it has grown and it has grown. I think that is what is going to happen again if we take this trajectory, this pathway, using OCO. I sense that if we make tough decisions today, it will benefit us in the long run. One of those tough decisions--and one I make very reluctantly--is to oppose this legislation. It is worthy legislation in many respects. I think we have to fix this problem, and I think we have to fix it now. I have tried in my efforts to focus the attention on the need to correct the BCA, the need to get us on a sustainable pathway where we do include within the base of the Department of Defense those funds they need to operate and then OCO really is for overseas contingency operations. Let me conclude my comments by saying there has been tremendous cooperation and support. It starts with the chairman. I particularly want to thank his staff director, Chris Brose, for his great work. I thank my colleagues on the Democratic side: Liz King, Gary Leeling, Creighton Greene, Kirk McConnell, Bill Monahan, Mike Kuiken, John Quirk, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Arun Seraphin, Carolyn Chuhta, Mike Noblet, Ozge Guzelsu, Maggie McNamara, Jody Bennett, and, once again, my staff director, Liz King. I would like to thank the floor staff. I have come to appreciate more than I ever knew how vital a role they play on both sides of the aisle, and I thank them for what they have done. Finally, this bill has some extraordinarily good provisions in it. Many of them are tough, hard, path-breaking provisions that are there because the chairman decided he was going to go all in on many different aspects, from acquisition, to troop support efforts, to incorporating provisions of the commission on pay and retirement, all of those things, and I commend him for that. It is just that I think I have to stand and say we have to fix this issue with respect to the underpinning fundamental budget approach which says: We will let BCA stand for every other agency, but we will be able to exploit, in a way, this OCO exception, and we will use it. And I think that is not the path we want to pursue. With that, and again with my thanks to the chairman, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand as a very proud cosponsor, along with Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein, on this amendment. I particularly wish to commend both Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain because they have really been the leaders in this Senate and in this country in expressing our fundamental values when it comes to the techniques we employ for those we detain in combat zones. Both their words and personal example have set an extraordinary standard for us to respond to, and this amendment is typical of what they have done. It would codify the terms of President Obama's Executive order 13491 that applies to the Army Field Manual on interrogations not only for the U.S. military but also for the interrogation of detainees by other U.S. Government agencies. What I think is so critical to this debate, this amendment, and the service of these two Senators is that the humane treatment standard we set for those who are in our custody also serves to protect our men and women if they fall into the hands of our opponents. We then can say with complete sincerity and complete fidelity that we demand our troops receive humane treatment when in the custody of hostile forces because that is what we do. When we deviate from that standard, we imperil the safety and lives of our men and women in uniform who may fall into hostile hands. As we adhere to these standards, we are not only setting a very high bar for the treatment of those whom we may hold, but we are innately protecting the safety, health, welfare, and well-being of those who serve in the uniform of the United States, and for that reason in particular, I commend the sponsors of this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I would object.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, at this time, I object.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. REED. I object.

Mr. REED. To the Senator from Oklahoma, we have been trying to move forward on an equal basis in terms of pending amendments. At this juncture, I am not able to agree to make another amendment pending. There is a possibility that we spoke about, briefly, of including these amendments in the manager's package or, since it is germane, of trying to arrange for consideration after cloture, along with another germane amendment. So at this point I would not be prepared to--

Mr. REED. Have you made the motion?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I oppose the Ernst amendment. It would undermine what has been the fundamental policy of the United States going back into the last administration: a unified, sovereign Iraq. This amendment would send a signal to the Iraqis that we are supporting the Kurds directly, not supporting a unified, sovereign Iraq. That would complicate our efforts against ISIL. It would complicate our efforts in the region. Also, it is the situation now where the effort is shifting into Anbar Province in the Sunni areas. We are supporting the Kurds. In fact, Prime Minister Barzani was here a few weeks ago and indicated that he was at least accepting of the arrangements, which I think were appropriate. If this amendment passes, the perception will be that the United States is now not trying to unify or help the Iraqis unify but put a degree of separation between an autonomy, and that would be a mistake.

Mr. REED. Madam President, at 5 p.m. we will be voting on an amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. The amendment would require the Secretary of the Army to maintain at least 32 brigade combat teams in the Regular and Reserve components of the Army and 28 brigade combat teams in the Army National Guard. Effectively and deliberately, this amendment would prevent the Army from managing its own force structure, determining how many brigades it needs, how they are disposed in terms of Active, Reserve, and Regular forces. In addition, the way the amendment is paid for, to maintain these additional brigades would be to mandate a 1-percent pay cut for all Federal civilian employees for 2016 and 2017--not a pay freeze, a pay cut. The Army does not support this amendment. They need the flexibility to manage their forces to respond to the threats as they perceive them in the world, to determine where the forces are mechanized, whether they are located in the National Guard or whether they are located in the Regular force. As such, as the Army draws down--and it is on that trajectory because of many issues, some of them budgetary--they would have to totally reexamine their existing force structure and they would indeed have to, I think, sacrifice what they think is the most optimal force for a legislative mandate of an arbitrary number of brigades in place. This will create readiness problems because it is one thing to have brigades on paper; it is another to have brigades that are ready to deploy, fully trained, fully equipped, fully manned. That would complicate this process for the Army. So for these reasons, when the amendment is presented at 5 p.m., I will be opposing the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in that opposition. I think the Army is the most capable to determine its force structure and not by legislative fiat. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the time.