Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up Reed amendment No. 1521.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murphy, Senator Markey, Senator Casey, Senator Murray, and Senator Franken as cosponsors of the Reed amendment No. 1521 to H.R. 1735.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, International trade is a vital part of our Nation's economy. Nearly one-third of the country's gross domestic product is supported by trade in goods and services and, indeed, my State of Rhode Island exported goods totaling $2.4 billion in 2014. It is also a key component of our international partnerships and global security efforts. However, the question today is not whether we should engage in trade. It is about the bill before us, and whether trade promotion authority, TPA, so-called ``fast-track,'' is in our best interest. It remains my view that Congress has a critical role to play in thoroughly vetting trade agreements. Passing this legislation takes away this role, reducing Congressional approval to an up-or-down vote. The bill before us today would also prohibit amendments and limit debate to just 20 hours. I believe that the scope and complexity of modern trade agreements demand more time for debate and a greater ability to contribute than this framework provides. Further, this bill allows for a 6-year grant of TPA, meaning that any trade agreement under any administration over the next several years could receive this expedited approval. A number of trade agreements are currently being negotiated and it is impossible to know what additional trade deals may be pursued and what other factors, both here and abroad, may change over the course of the next several years. Given this, I do not think that Congress should vote to limit its own oversight, particularly for such a long period of time. I also have concerns about the negotiating objectives set forth in this package. We need negotiating objectives that are enforceable. Without stronger and more concrete language on a number of key issues including currency manipulation, labor, and environmental standards, these negotiating objectives are unlikely to make an impact or be seen as a critical component for reaching a deal by our partners. For this reason, I joined Senators Portman and Stabenow and many of our colleagues in cosponsoring and voting for amendment 1299, which, had it passed, would have established a negotiating objective that urges the administration to press for rules against currency manipulation that are enforceable and consistent with IMF obligations. Without strengthening this and other objectives within TPA, they become mere suggestions, failing to afford critical protection to American workers and interests. I commend the work of Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, along with Senator Brown and other colleagues, to find a path forward for the customs and African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, reauthorization bills that we passed last week, which I was pleased to join a majority of my colleagues in supporting. I am also pleased that a path forward has been found for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, which I have consistently supported. Most recently, I cosponsored Senator Brown's amendment to raise TAA funding levels to better support workers who have been displaced by trade. We all know that trade is not a tide that equally lifts all boats, and, so while I am pleased that TAA appears to be moving forward at this time, I am disappointed that the Brown amendment to enhance support for TAA did not pass. We need to set the highest bar for our trade policy. It needs to advance our strategic and national interests while ensuring that American workers are in the best position to compete in this global economy. They deserve nothing less, and, in my view, TPA simply does not do enough to protect workers in my State of Rhode Island and across the country. For these reasons, I must oppose this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2015. This legislation seeks to extend simple fairness to our State's fishermen by giving Rhode Island voting representation on the Mid- Atlantic Fishery-Management Council MAFMC. The council manages stocks, like squid, which are critically important to the fishing industry in my State. Rhode Island's commercial fishing industry depends more on MAFMC-managed stocks than those managed by the New England Fisheries Management Council, where Rhode Island is a member. More than that, Rhode Island has a larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery than many of the states that currently hold seats on the MAFMC. This is not a new proposal, nor is it unprecedented. North Carolina was added to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. In addition, the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required a report on this issue. Now it is time to make this change. I was pleased in the last Congress that this legislation was included in the Commerce Committee's discussion draft for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as in the reauthorization bill introduced by then-Oceans Subcommittee Chairman Mark Begich at the end of last year. I hope that in this Congress we can take this commonsense step to bring fairness to Rhode Island's fishermen.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2015. This legislation seeks to extend simple fairness to our State's fishermen by giving Rhode Island voting representation on the Mid- Atlantic Fishery-Management Council MAFMC. The council manages stocks, like squid, which are critically important to the fishing industry in my State. Rhode Island's commercial fishing industry depends more on MAFMC-managed stocks than those managed by the New England Fisheries Management Council, where Rhode Island is a member. More than that, Rhode Island has a larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery than many of the states that currently hold seats on the MAFMC. This is not a new proposal, nor is it unprecedented. North Carolina was added to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. In addition, the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required a report on this issue. Now it is time to make this change. I was pleased in the last Congress that this legislation was included in the Commerce Committee's discussion draft for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as in the reauthorization bill introduced by then-Oceans Subcommittee Chairman Mark Begich at the end of last year. I hope that in this Congress we can take this commonsense step to bring fairness to Rhode Island's fishermen.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Udall, Durbin, Coons, Warren, Schatz, Heinrich, Donnelly, Ayotte, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Stabenow, Tester, Hirono, Merkley, Sanders, Grassley, Collins, and Reid in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation is named for the son of our former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, who took his own life at the young age of 22. After this tragedy, Senator Smith worked to gain the support of members across the aisle and in both chambers to prevent other children from doing the same with passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004. Although great strides have been made over the last decade, suicide remains the third-leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, youth suicide results in approximately 4,600 lives lost each year. Additionally, the CDC reports that 157,000 young adults in this age group are treated for self- inflicted injuries annually, often as the result of a failed suicide attempt. More work must be done to address the mental and behavioral health of children and young adults before they hurt themselves and others. Parents also need help in identifying early warning signs of mental illness and accessing the appropriate treatment before it is too late. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act authorizes critical resources for schools--elementary schools through college where children and young adults spend most of their time--to be able to reach at-risk youth. Since 2005, this law has supported 370 youth suicide prevention grants in all 50 States, 46 tribes or tribal organizations, and 175 institutions of higher education. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today, with the support of over 40 member organizations of the Mental Health Liaison Group, would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental illness and reduce youth suicide. It will enable more schools to offer critical services to students and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly on college campuses. This change to the Campus Suicide Prevention Program comes at a vital time. Over the last decade, we have seen an increasing trend in the number of students seeking help for mental health issues on college campuses. Of these students seeking services for mental health issues, over 30 percent report that they have seriously considered attempting suicide at some point in their lives. With more students seeking mental health services, we must work to ensure that college and university counseling centers are equipped with the necessary tools to meet this demand. We can play a role in helping these children and their families. Indeed, passing the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization is one way we can better address the mental health needs of this population. I urge our colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Udall, Durbin, Coons, Warren, Schatz, Heinrich, Donnelly, Ayotte, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Stabenow, Tester, Hirono, Merkley, Sanders, Grassley, Collins, and Reid in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation is named for the son of our former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, who took his own life at the young age of 22. After this tragedy, Senator Smith worked to gain the support of members across the aisle and in both chambers to prevent other children from doing the same with passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004. Although great strides have been made over the last decade, suicide remains the third-leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, youth suicide results in approximately 4,600 lives lost each year. Additionally, the CDC reports that 157,000 young adults in this age group are treated for self- inflicted injuries annually, often as the result of a failed suicide attempt. More work must be done to address the mental and behavioral health of children and young adults before they hurt themselves and others. Parents also need help in identifying early warning signs of mental illness and accessing the appropriate treatment before it is too late. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act authorizes critical resources for schools--elementary schools through college where children and young adults spend most of their time--to be able to reach at-risk youth. Since 2005, this law has supported 370 youth suicide prevention grants in all 50 States, 46 tribes or tribal organizations, and 175 institutions of higher education. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today, with the support of over 40 member organizations of the Mental Health Liaison Group, would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental illness and reduce youth suicide. It will enable more schools to offer critical services to students and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly on college campuses. This change to the Campus Suicide Prevention Program comes at a vital time. Over the last decade, we have seen an increasing trend in the number of students seeking help for mental health issues on college campuses. Of these students seeking services for mental health issues, over 30 percent report that they have seriously considered attempting suicide at some point in their lives. With more students seeking mental health services, we must work to ensure that college and university counseling centers are equipped with the necessary tools to meet this demand. We can play a role in helping these children and their families. Indeed, passing the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization is one way we can better address the mental health needs of this population. I urge our colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to welcome His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia. Since 1995, His Holiness has served as the leader of Armenian communities across the globe, including many members of the Armenian diaspora in my State of Rhode Island. His Holiness will be visiting Sts. Vartanantz Armenian Apostolic Church in Providence on May 30, and members of the Armenian community in Rhode Island look forward to welcoming him. He is an accomplished scholar, a devoted humanitarian, and a strong spiritual shepherd. Recently, we marked the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, which claimed the lives of nearly one and a half million Armenians, exiled over a half a million survivors, and deeply impacted all Armenians throughout the world. On this centennial, we reflect on this exceptionally grave tragedy, and looking to the future, continue to work to promote both peace and human rights worldwide. And there is no one better to help us do so. It is indeed an honor to welcome His Holiness, to hear his words of prayer and reflection, and to go forward knowing that he is a powerful force for tolerance and decency. I thank him for being here today and for sharing his words of wisdom with the Senate and the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the budget conference report before us today charts the wrong course for our country and threatens our economic and national security. During the consideration of the Republican Senate budget a few weeks ago, I laid out concerns about its most alarming aspects and my reasons for opposing it. My concerns and opposition have not changed because this Republican budget conference report doesn't deviate from the Senate budget's construct. Indeed, the Republican budget stacks the deck in favor of special interests and makes it harder for middle-class families to get ahead. For example, their budget would eliminate the estate tax, giving the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans a $269 billion tax cut over 10 years. It would pave the way to cut millionaire's top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. At the same time, it would raise taxes on 16 million middle-class families by ending the expansion of the earned income tax credit and child tax credit. These choices by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are clear and stand in stark contrast to policies my Democratic colleagues and I fight for that help middle-class families and grow the economy from the middle out. The Republican budget would also keep the sequester in place, which puts unworkable caps on nondefense and defense spending. Both sides of the ledger need relief from the sequester for our Nation's economic and national security. But it seems that my colleagues on the other side are only willing to use the overseas contingency operations, OCO, account to provide relief to defense spending despite what we have heard from our military leaders on the need to address both sides of the ledger and that using OCO in this manner has its own serious shortcomings. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other government departments and agencies--including State, Justice, Homeland Security, and the intelligence community. In the Armed Services Committee, we have heard compelling testimony on the essential role of other government agencies in ensuring our Nation remains safe and strong. The Department of Defense's share of the burden would surely grow if these agencies were not adequately funded as well. Adding funds to OCO does not solve the Defense Department's problems. As Army Chief of Staff General Odierno said, ``OCO has limits and it has restrictions and it has very strict rules that have to be followed. And so if we're inhibited by that, it might not help us. What might happen at the end of the year, we have a bunch of money we hand back because we are not able to spend it.'' Making a 1-year plus up to OCO also does not help the Defense Department 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. Defense Secretary Carter added that raising OCO does not allow the Defense Department to plan ``efficiently or strategically.'' While adding funds to OCO would provide some relief to the Defense Department, it is to defense alone, leaving domestic agencies at sequestration levels. And the truth is that the Defense Department cannot do its job without other departments. As General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' And in recent testimony, the commanders of Northern Command and Southern Command stated they could not accomplish their mission of protecting this country without the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, DEA, and the intelligence community. Moving beyond the needs we have to keep the Nation safe, there is a whole list of needs that ensure Americans and our economy stays healthy and thrives. I would like to bring attention to one such need-- addressing lead poisoning, a preventable tragedy that dramatically impacts a child's health and ability to learn. This budget would mean cuts to programs that help keep kids healthy like the lead poisoning prevention program. The kinds of physical health issues and developmental delays that stem from lead poisoning have long term effects on our children, our communities, and our economy. Indeed, educational system costs are estimated at $38,000 over 3 years per child with special education needs due to lead poisoning. The impact is especially pronounced in low-income and minority neighborhoods and populations in cities like Providence or as the Nation has recently seen in the dramatic events unfolding in Baltimore. These lead poisoning prevention programs are the kinds of initiatives that help put disadvantaged communities on an even playing field and, ultimately, work to ensure that our children can grow up to contribute to their families and their communities. I have mentioned several shortsighed provisions, but this budget is replete with them. We cannot short-change our Nation's investments in the middle class, in our children, and our national security and expect long-term prosperity. That is why I will vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am glad to join with several of my colleagues to talk about electronic cigarettes and the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, role in regulating these products. Over the last year, e-cigarette use among high school students has tripled from 4.5 percent to 13.4 percent, according to recent CDC data. In fact, research from the University of Michigan's annual Monitoring the Future survey shows that in 2014 more teenagers reported using e- cigarettes than traditional tobacco products. One year ago, the FDA took an important initial step by proposing to regulate e-cigarettes, but more must be done to strengthen this rule and ensure that the same practices used by Big Tobacco for years to promote smoking are not used by e-cigarette companies to create a new generation of smokers. I am pleased that the FDA has proposed prohibiting e-cigarette sales to minors, as well as prohibiting vending machine sales and free samples, to prevent sales and use by minors. Further, the proposed FDA rule requires e-cigarette manufacturers to list product ingredients and for tobacco products containing nicotine to carry an addiction warning label. While I commend FDA on proposing these important steps, the rule must be improved to address the marketing of these products to children and e-cigarette flavorings and be finalized as soon as possible. Indeed, I sent a letter last week with nine of my colleagues--many of whom are also speaking about e-cigarettes today--urging the FDA to strengthen and finalize this rule. E-cigarette companies are taking a page out of the Big Tobacco playbook, using celebrity endorsements of their products, cartoons, and advertising in magazines with youth readership and at music festivals and sports events targeted at children. According to a 2014 study in the journal Pediatrics, exposure to e-cigarette marketing by children aged 12 to 17 increased by 256 percent between 2011 and 2013, exposing 24 million children to e-cigarette advertisements. In this context, it is unsurprising that youth use of e-cigarettes has skyrocketed during the same timeframe. It is well known that tobacco advertising influences consumer behavior, especially that of children, so it is my hope that the final e-cigarette deeming rule will address this issue. As for the use of candy, soft drink, fruit, and other flavors in e- cigarettes, the FDA itself acknowledged in the proposed rule that children are the most likely to be attracted by and use these flavored tobacco products. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibits these kinds of flavorings from being used in traditional cigarettes and that same scrutiny should be applied to e-cigarettes and refill liquids so that children are not attracted to these products. We have come a long way since I proposed legislation in the late 1990s to deny tobacco companies tax deductions for advertising to children. I was an original cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in 2009 and incorporated the goals of my bill to keep the tobacco industry from targeting children as new customers. This law provides the FDA with the explicit authority to protect the public from deceptive cigarette advertisements, prevents the targeting of minors, and removes certain harmful ingredients from cigarettes. This was an important effort. But we must be ever vigilant and continue to address new tobacco-related concerns as they arise, such as e-cigarettes. Until the deeming rule is finalized, e-cigarettes will continue to operate completely unregulated, with an increasing number of children taking up this addictive habit every day. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the issue and I join them in strongly urging the FDA to strengthen and finalize the e-cigarette deeming rule quickly so that the agency can begin regulating these tobacco products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:25 p.m. today be equally divided in the usual form and that it be in order to call up the following amendment: Barrasso No. 1147; further, I ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment and that there be a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with my colleague, Senator Blumenthal. This bill closes a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct an executive's pay that exceeds $1 million from their tax bill. Under current tax law, when a public 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 $15 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 cut of $5.25 million. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would instead allow a public corporation to deduct all forms of compensation up to only $1 million per employee. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation, after deducting only $1 million from the $15 million in CEO compensation, would then pay $4.9 million in taxes. In short, instead of costing the government $5.25 million, this public corporation will be paying $4.9 million in taxes, reducing the burden on middle-class families and our national debt. 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. First, our legislation extends section 162(m) of the Tax Code to apply 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 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 that are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging unrestrained compensation packages shouldn't hinge on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole. With this legislation, we aim to put an end to some of the extravagant tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out. I 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, today I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with my colleague, Senator Blumenthal. This bill closes a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct an executive's pay that exceeds $1 million from their tax bill. Under current tax law, when a public 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 $15 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 cut of $5.25 million. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would instead allow a public corporation to deduct all forms of compensation up to only $1 million per employee. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation, after deducting only $1 million from the $15 million in CEO compensation, would then pay $4.9 million in taxes. In short, instead of costing the government $5.25 million, this public corporation will be paying $4.9 million in taxes, reducing the burden on middle-class families and our national debt. 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. First, our legislation extends section 162(m) of the Tax Code to apply 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 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 that are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging unrestrained compensation packages shouldn't hinge on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole. With this legislation, we aim to put an end to some of the extravagant tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out. I 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, today postsecondary education is required for most family-sustaining, middle-class jobs, and an educated workforce is essential to a modern, productive economy. A recent report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that college-intensive business services have replaced manufacturing as the largest sector in the U.S. economy, and that while college-educated workers make up only 32 percent of the workforce, they now produce more than 50 percent of the Nation's economic output, up from 13 percent in 1967. Median annual earnings for bachelor's degree holders were $23,000 higher compared to high school graduates in 2014. Yet just as there is growing recognition that postsecondary education is indispensable in the modern economy, families are being required to shoulder growing debt burdens that threaten access to college. According to a recent analysis of student loan debt by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, between 2004 and 2014, there was an 89 percent increase in the number of student loan borrowers and a 77 percent increase in the average balance size. Today, over 40 million Americans have student loan debt. This is a growing drag on our economy. As student loan debt has grown, young adults have put off buying homes or cars, starting a family, saving for retirement, or launching new businesses. They have literally mortgaged their economic future. We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. Default rates are on the rise. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that the number of borrowers who default each year increased from about half a million 10 years ago to 1.2 million annually in 2011 and 2012. Only 37 percent of borrowers are current on their loan and actively paying down their debt. We cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions also stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and student borrowing. That is why I am pleased to introduce the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin, Warren, and Murphy to ensure there is more skin in the game when it comes to student loan debt by setting stronger market incentives for colleges and universities to provide better and more affordable education to students, which will in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults. The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan defaults by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have 25 percent or more of their students borrow would be included in risk sharing based on their cohort default rate. Risk-sharing requirements would kick in when the default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institutional default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment. The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students, such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic Serving Institutions provided that they are making progress in their student loan management plans. The risk-sharing payments will be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant program. With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. And we need all stakeholders in the system to do their part. With the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working with them to include it and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to solemnly observe the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. One hundred years ago, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century began when the young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire executed more than 200 Armenian leaders and intellectuals. What followed was an 8-year systematic campaign of oppression, which by 1923, left an estimated 1.5 million Armenians dead and over a half a million survivors exiled. These atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor and, indeed, across the globe, and many called for the United States to take action. The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during this dark time, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded with President Wilson to take action, and later remembered the events of the genocide, saying: I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. Former President Theodore Roosevelt also called for an American response, saying, ``Until we put honor and duty first, and are willing to risk something in order to achieve righteousness both for ourselves and for others, we shall accomplish nothing; and we shall earn and deserve the contempt of the strong nations of mankind.'' Unfortunately, the United States and the world did not intervene. It is a testament to the unbreakable spirit of the survivors of the Armenian genocide that they persevered and went on to enrich their countries of emigration, including the United States. That is why today we not only commemorate this grave tragedy, but we celebrate the traditions, the contributions, as well as the bright future of the Armenian people. Indeed, my home State of Rhode Island continues to be enriched by our strong and vibrant Armenian-American community. Denial of this history is inconsistent with our country's values and as we mark this centennial, I once again join with my colleagues on a resolution that encourages the United States to recognize the Armenian genocide. We must continue to guard against hatred and oppression so that we can prevent such crimes against humanity. I would note that, earlier this month, Pope Francis held a mass to recognize this centennial and described this mass atrocity against Armenians as the first genocide of the 20th century. On this, the 100th anniversary, the United States should similarly recognize this horrific tragedy as genocide, joining the ranks of the many countries that have already done so. I remain committed to supporting efforts, as ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to provide assistance to Armenia to promote economic growth, strengthen security, and support democratic reforms and development. I am pleased that on May 7, at my invitation, His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Worldwide Armenian Apostolic Church and the Great House of Cilicia, will serve as guest Chaplain before this body and continue this important message. We must find a way to come together to recognize what happened a century ago and show our unwavering support to those facing persecution today. I hope we can do that.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Grassley in reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. These and other public companies had produced fraudulent and materially misleading financial statements, which artificially drove their stock prices up. Once the fraud was discovered, investor confidence plummeted. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99 to 0 vote. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. This law also created a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies. The PCAOB is responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies and operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissioner, SEC. To conduct its duties, the PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to commence proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the Board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years. The nonpublic nature of these PCAOB disciplinary proceedings creates a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the establishment of the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Over the last several years, some bad actors have taken advantage of the lack of transparency by using it to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the past two years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large. In one example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about the PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. In other words, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant and material information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are several reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, as I have already noted, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other government oversight bodies. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against those it regulates, including public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others, are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but also from Congress, making it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively evaluate the Board's oversight of auditors and audit firms, and its enforcement program. Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Third, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparency of proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing the transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to disciplinary proceedings instituted by the PCAOB is a critical component of efforts to bolster and maintain investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Grassley in reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. These and other public companies had produced fraudulent and materially misleading financial statements, which artificially drove their stock prices up. Once the fraud was discovered, investor confidence plummeted. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99 to 0 vote. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. This law also created a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies. The PCAOB is responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies and operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissioner, SEC. To conduct its duties, the PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to commence proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the Board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years. The nonpublic nature of these PCAOB disciplinary proceedings creates a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the establishment of the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Over the last several years, some bad actors have taken advantage of the lack of transparency by using it to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the past two years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large. In one example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about the PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. In other words, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant and material information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are several reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, as I have already noted, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other government oversight bodies. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against those it regulates, including public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others, are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but also from Congress, making it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively evaluate the Board's oversight of auditors and audit firms, and its enforcement program. Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Third, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparency of proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing the transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to disciplinary proceedings instituted by the PCAOB is a critical component of efforts to bolster and maintain investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand with great pleasure and pride, along with Senator Whitehouse, to congratulate the Providence College men's hockey team in winning the 2015 NCAA Division I National Championship, and I am pleased to have worked with my colleague Senator Whitehouse in adopting a resolution last week to honor this great accomplishment. This is the first national championship in the history of PC's men's hockey club, and I am sure this season will be long remembered by Providence College players, coaches, staff, and fans. The championship game featured phenomenal plays and contributions from many Friars players, including a career-high 49 saves by goaltender Jon Gillies, and one goal each from Anthony Florentino, Mark Jankowski, Tom Parisi, and Brandon Tanev. I would like to congratulate all of the Friars players whose season- long hard work and dedication made this successful season possible. The 2015 PC men's hockey team consisted of: Rhode Island's own Noel Acciari, Mark Adams, Brooks Behling, Alex Cromwell, Logan Day, Stefan Demopoulos, Nick Ellis, Anthony Florentino, Jon Gillies, John Gilmour, Robbie Hennessey, Mark Jankowski, Brendan Leahy, Shane Luke, Conor MacPhee, Ross Mauermann, Kyle McKenzie, Steven McParland, Trevor Mingoia, Josh Monk, Tom Perisi, Brian Pinho, Truman Reed, Kevin Rooney, Niko Rufo, Nick Saracino, Brandon Tanev, and Jake Walman. I will apologize for my Rhode Island accent. I would also like to extend my best wishes to PC player Drew Brown, who missed this season while battling a rare form of bone cancer and is thankfully now reported to be cancer-free. But he contributed in many ways to the success of the team. Additionally, I want to recognize the coaches and staff whose commitment and preparation was essential to winning this national championship, especially head coach Nate Leaman, who won the championship in only his fourth season at PC. The other coaches and staff of the 2015 PC men's hockey team were: associate head coach Steve Miller, assistant coach Kris Mayotte, coordinator of Men's Hockey operations Kyle Murphy, and goaltending coach Jim McNiff. I also commend Providence College President Father Brian Shanley and athletic director Robert Driscoll on their accomplishments and extraordinary dedication to the school and to the community of Rhode Island. Again, I join many in the State of Rhode Island and around the hockey world in congratulating the Providence College men's ice hockey team on their incredible national championship season and wish them continued success in the future. I am proud to yield the floor to my colleague Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve at private institutions of higher education and rail carriers. Through this legislation, these individuals would be eligible for many of the same benefits provided to public law enforcement officers, including line-of-duty death benefits and access to federal grant opportunities through the Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, programs. In 1976, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits PSOB program was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of public safety officers. Recognizing the danger that law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders face while serving in our communities, the PSOB provides a one-time financial benefit to survivors of officers who die as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. Although the officers protecting our private universities and railways face the same risks, they are currently not included in the PSOB program These brave individuals protect our communities every day, enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and receive similar training to their government counterparts. However, they are currently excluded from the line-of-duty federal death benefits available to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments, and from access to federal grant programs for protective body armor and other equipment. Since 1960, approximately 35 college or university law enforcement officers have lost their lives while protecting our communities. While some families of officers that have been gravely injured while serving at public universities have received PSOB line-of-duty death benefits, the families of those who lost their lives while serving at private institutions have been ineligible. We should fix this inequity. Inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial are the names of the heroes who gave their full measure while protecting our communities. This memorial includes Patrol Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as the other officers who died while working at private universities and colleges and on our railways. A recent name on the Memorial is Patrol Officer Sean Collier. Today, we mark the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, an act of terror that tragically killed three and injured hundreds of others. Three days after the bombings, during the manhunt for the attackers, Officer Collier of the MIT Police Department was shot and killed by the perpetrators on the university's campus. Officer Collier died while not only bravely serving the students and faculty of MIT. He was also serving the city of Boston, working with others in the law enforcement community during an exceptionally difficult time to keep the city and our nation safe. However, since he was employed by a private university, Officer Collier was not eligible for line-of-duty death benefits. To honor Officer Collier's service and sacrifice, this bill would be retroactive to April 15, 2013, the day of the Boston bombings. I am pleased that Senators Ayotte, Leahy, Whitehouse, and Markey have once again joined me in introducing this legislation, which would ensure that officers who have lost their lives protecting our communities and their families are eligible for the benefits associated with law enforcement work as well as access to the protective equipment they need. The bill would only apply to officers who are sworn, licensed, or certified to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and is supported by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve at private institutions of higher education and rail carriers. Through this legislation, these individuals would be eligible for many of the same benefits provided to public law enforcement officers, including line-of-duty death benefits and access to federal grant opportunities through the Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, programs. In 1976, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits PSOB program was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of public safety officers. Recognizing the danger that law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders face while serving in our communities, the PSOB provides a one-time financial benefit to survivors of officers who die as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. Although the officers protecting our private universities and railways face the same risks, they are currently not included in the PSOB program These brave individuals protect our communities every day, enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and receive similar training to their government counterparts. However, they are currently excluded from the line-of-duty federal death benefits available to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments, and from access to federal grant programs for protective body armor and other equipment. Since 1960, approximately 35 college or university law enforcement officers have lost their lives while protecting our communities. While some families of officers that have been gravely injured while serving at public universities have received PSOB line-of-duty death benefits, the families of those who lost their lives while serving at private institutions have been ineligible. We should fix this inequity. Inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial are the names of the heroes who gave their full measure while protecting our communities. This memorial includes Patrol Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as the other officers who died while working at private universities and colleges and on our railways. A recent name on the Memorial is Patrol Officer Sean Collier. Today, we mark the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, an act of terror that tragically killed three and injured hundreds of others. Three days after the bombings, during the manhunt for the attackers, Officer Collier of the MIT Police Department was shot and killed by the perpetrators on the university's campus. Officer Collier died while not only bravely serving the students and faculty of MIT. He was also serving the city of Boston, working with others in the law enforcement community during an exceptionally difficult time to keep the city and our nation safe. However, since he was employed by a private university, Officer Collier was not eligible for line-of-duty death benefits. To honor Officer Collier's service and sacrifice, this bill would be retroactive to April 15, 2013, the day of the Boston bombings. I am pleased that Senators Ayotte, Leahy, Whitehouse, and Markey have once again joined me in introducing this legislation, which would ensure that officers who have lost their lives protecting our communities and their families are eligible for the benefits associated with law enforcement work as well as access to the protective equipment they need. The bill would only apply to officers who are sworn, licensed, or certified to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and is supported by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that after 12 years of temporary patches to delay cuts under the Sustainable Growth Rate, Congress is finally acting to reform the Medicare physician payment system for the long term. In so doing, we not only ensure access to care for seniors but also help improve the quality of care they receive through Medicare. However, I am disappointed that the same certainty is not provided to children and families impacted by the Children's Health Insurance program, CHIP. This legislation extends funding for CHIP for 2 years and continues policies that encourage enrollment in the program. But it does not extend this critical funding for a much longer period of time, like the 4 years my colleagues and I have been urging for months. We are missing a crucial opportunity to ensure that children and pregnant women have access to comprehensive, affordable health insurance coverage for years to come. Currently, more than 10 million children benefit from this program. In 2 years, funding for this program will expire, putting children at risk of becoming uninsured once again. Moreover, the bill takes the same temporary approach with respect to the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting, MIECHV, program, Community Health Centers, and other initiatives. I am also concerned that Medicare beneficiaries will see increases in out-of-pocket costs to help pay for the legislation. Faced with the threat of looming cuts to health care providers and the resulting risk of disruption of services should doctors withdraw from Medicare, we are being forced to instead choose to increase costs on seniors, rather than any number of offsets that could have asked the wealthiest Americans or corporations to pay a little more to ensure that Medicare is protected for everyone. Indeed, the majority in the other body insisted on paying for this bill, at least in part, by increasing these out-of-pocket costs. For a bill designed to protect access to health care for seniors, it should not turn around and then demand they pay more. We should be reaffirming our commitment to protecting Medicare beneficiaries and these cuts do just the opposite. With these provisions not taking effect until 5 years from now, I hope that gives us ample time to revisit this. After years of disagreements on health care issues, it is good to see that we can move on this bill on a bipartisan basis. So while I have the reservations I have outlined, and will support amendments to address these issues, I will vote for this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we rely on our public schools to prepare the next generation for success as citizens, workers, and innovators. We have asked educators to raise the bar and educate all students to internationally competitive college and career-ready standards. To achieve these goals, we need to establish a comprehensive system of educator preparation and support that ensures that new educators are profession-ready and that provides for their growth and development over the course of their careers. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Casey in introducing the Better Education Support and Training, BEST Act to reform induction, professional development, and systems for professional growth and improvement for teachers, librarians, and principals currently on the job, updating the Effective Teaching and Leading Act that I introduced last Congress. The BEST Act will strengthen Title II, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that formula grant funds support the goal of all students having equitable access to profession-ready and effective educators. The BEST Act will ensure that all educators on the instructional team--teachers, principals, counselors, librarians, and other specialized instructional support personnel--collaborate and are prepared and supported in helping students achieve and grow. It will offer induction and mentoring programs for new educators; personalized, job-embedded professional development, and career pathways and leadership roles for teachers and other educators. In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing legislation to address the front end of the educator pipeline--the Educator Preparation Reform Act. This legislation builds on the success of the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Together, these two bills will modernize Federal policy for education preparation and development to create a continuum of support for professional educators throughout their careers. They provide a blueprint for reauthorizing Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Title II of the Higher Education Act. Over the years, I have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on these bills, including the Coalition for Teaching Quality, representing over 100 national, State, and local organizations. I look forward to working to incorporate these bills into the upcoming reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act, and I urge our colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we rely on our public schools to prepare the next generation for success as citizens, workers, and innovators. We have asked educators to raise the bar and educate all students to internationally competitive college and career-ready standards. To achieve these goals, we need to establish a comprehensive system of educator preparation and support that ensures that new educators are profession-ready and that provides for their growth and development over the course of their careers. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Casey in introducing the Better Education Support and Training, BEST Act to reform induction, professional development, and systems for professional growth and improvement for teachers, librarians, and principals currently on the job, updating the Effective Teaching and Leading Act that I introduced last Congress. The BEST Act will strengthen Title II, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that formula grant funds support the goal of all students having equitable access to profession-ready and effective educators. The BEST Act will ensure that all educators on the instructional team--teachers, principals, counselors, librarians, and other specialized instructional support personnel--collaborate and are prepared and supported in helping students achieve and grow. It will offer induction and mentoring programs for new educators; personalized, job-embedded professional development, and career pathways and leadership roles for teachers and other educators. In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing legislation to address the front end of the educator pipeline--the Educator Preparation Reform Act. This legislation builds on the success of the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Together, these two bills will modernize Federal policy for education preparation and development to create a continuum of support for professional educators throughout their careers. They provide a blueprint for reauthorizing Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Title II of the Higher Education Act. Over the years, I have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on these bills, including the Coalition for Teaching Quality, representing over 100 national, State, and local organizations. I look forward to working to incorporate these bills into the upcoming reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act, and I urge our colleagues to join in this effort.