Jack Reed

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, this amendment is based on legislation Senator Blumenthal and I introduced last Congress to close a major loophole in the current corporate tax law by putting an end to unlimited tax write-offs for performance-based executive pay. In 1993, Congress limited the deductibility of executive pay to $1 million, with an exception for performance-based compensation. But over the last two decades, corporations have made the exception the rule, and we have seen more pay designated as performance based even in some cases where the company is not doing very well for the shareholders. It has been estimated that between 2007 and 2010, $121.5 billion in executive pay was deductible, and roughly 55 percent of that was for performance-based compensation. Businesses and shareholders should establish the pay of their officers and employees, but the taxpayers should not be subsidizing excessive pay at corporations. I urge a ``yes'' vote. It will save more than $50 billion over 10 years.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the budget resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This budget charts the wrong path for our Nation. It does not spur economic growth or help the middle class because it does not focus on creating high-quality jobs, boosting wages, or reducing inequality. It fails to address the cuts to government investments, which threatens our Nation's economic and national security. Instead, this budget stacks the deck against middle-class families by slashing government investments. It stacks the deck in favor of special interests by paving the way for huge tax giveaways to powerful special interests and the wealthiest Americans. In order to claim the budget will balance in 10 years, it relies on accounting gimmicks and $5.8 trillion in draconian cuts. It kicks millions off the health insurance rolls and dismantles health care reform. But, ironically, it takes credit for the savings that are part and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, all the while setting the stage for massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It would also put powerful special interests ahead of seniors by forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for prescription drugs and preventive care. It does not provide adequate safeguards for Social Security and Medicare. By saying no to closing egregious tax loopholes, it only increases the pressure to cut programs for seniors and others. You know, frankly, we have been talking for years here in Washington about the deficit. But, this budget proposed by my colleagues has a credibility deficit. So I think most of the observers and commentators are looking and saying: Well, that is impossible. No one is going to believe that you can repeal the Affordable Care Act but keep the savings. No one is going to believe you can do all of those things and still continue to keep a straight face. So I think the credibility of the budget is highly questionable. We should have engaged in a balanced approach to growing our economy and towards fiscal responsibility. A balanced approach requires not only making wise reductions in spending, but it also requires raising revenue. That is the way most government entities operate. Mayors and Governors have to do it, and they do it, but here, we are avoiding very difficult, tough choices. It is obvious there are things that have to be done. They cannot be wished away. Look at our crumbling infrastructure. As I drive around Rhode Island and the Northeast after a series of storms, I see the worst highway situation I think I recall in perhaps my lifetime, but at least in a long time. Potholes and disruptions are all over our roads. Americans expect it will be fixed, but you cannot fix it simply by wishing, you have to have the resources and the investment to make those corrections. As we go forward, it is important to go ahead and deal with all of these issues in a balanced way--not through creative accounting techniques but by making difficult choices. Programs that are not working should be cut back. Revenue should be provided for investment in this country. That is what I think we should and we must do. I have been particularly active with my colleague Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee because the Defense Department is facing serious financial challenges. All of our service sectors have warned that if sequestration remains in place, if the Budget Control Act remains in place, together they will not provide the resources necessary to adequately fund the readiness, the modernization of our forces and the welfare of our forces. Admiral Gortney, for example, who is the commander of NORTHCOM, has made this point along with everyone else, but he also went further to make the point that I think is critical when we are talking about defense and nondefense spending. You cannot draw this bright line between the Department of Defense and everybody else in terms of our national security. NORTHCOM, which is responsible for our security in the United States, depends upon border control agents at our border. They depend upon the Department of Homeland Security. If that agency is not adequately funded, if they are suffering through sequestration and the BCA levels, then we will not have the kind of national security we need. If it translates to further cuts in TSA agents at our airports, that will undermine our security. So this notion that we can draw a nice neat line between the Department of Defense and give them some more money through different techniques but ignore the other side of the equation does not work. One of the most significant examples comes from General John Kelly of Southern Command. They have the capability of, through satellite imagery, through other intelligence means, identifying these fast boats coming out of South America that have drugs and might have human cargo, possibly terrorists. Knowing where they are and where they are headed is fine, but unless you have Coast Guard cutters to intercept them, you will not interdict this traffic. As a result, what we will have is a hole in our national security. The Coast Guard cutters come from the Department of Homeland Security. So I know there has been an effort to use the Overseas Contingency Operation Fund. Senator Graham, in particular, has been very, very aggressive with that. But I will try to explain later, if not now: There are limitations. This fund is directed at our operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the authorization for the use of military force. To try to stretch this to build facilities in Alaska for missile defense--that is quite a stretch. That is not what OCO was designed for. I think it has become a valiant effort to put more money in, but the reality is, we have to face up, as Senator McCain and I suggested in our letter to the Budget Committee, and raise the baseline number for the Department of Defense to a total--at least to a total that avoids sequestration or beyond. That is a realistic way to do it, and revenue is a way to pay for it. And I don't think the cuts should come out of nondefense to fund defense. This is an issue--again, are you going to shortchange Homeland Security? Are you going to shortchange other agencies that are critical to the defense of the United States? Are you going to shortchange the people of the United States? I do not think we should. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warren, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up her amendment No. 652.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, will the Chair notify me when I have used 5 minutes of time.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, earlier today I came to the floor to talk about the danger this Republican budget poses to our economic and national security. I would like to expand on why this budget is out of balance and to further highlight the risks of using OCO, as some of my colleagues on the other side have proposed, instead of eliminating the sequester. This budget, instead of taking a balanced approach to growing our economy and fiscal responsibility, like raising revenue by closing egregious tax loopholes and investing that revenue in job creation measures, doubles down on unrealistic and unfair cuts to programs that help grow and strengthen America's middle class. This perverse standard is evident across this budget and it reinforces a disturbing trend by my colleagues on the other side--if it is a broad- based investment in our economy, like investing in infrastructure or providing aid to jobseekers, then it must be paid for by cuts on the backs of middle- class Americans; but, if it is for a set of powerful special interests like the extension of tax expenditures then the deficit doesn't matter to many of my colleagues on the other side. This sort of double standard is what causes the American people to feel that Congress is out of touch. Most alarmingly, this budget does not eliminate the automatic spending reductions, known as the sequester, contained in the Budget Control Act. The Senate Republican budget leaves hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating automatic cuts to discretionary spending in place and then makes an additional $236 billion in cuts over 10 years to investments for middle-class families. These cuts to our non-defense and defense budgets will cause substantial harm to our economic and national security. That is why we have to eliminate the sequester--and why there must be balance in relief for non-defense and defense sides of the ledger. Every senior civilian and military leader in the Department of Defense who has come before the Armed Services Committee has warned that if defense budgets are subject to sequestration, we will likely not be able to meet the national defense strategy without an unacceptable level of risk. It will have a damaging impact on our military readiness, modernization, and the welfare of our service members and their families. Earlier today I mentioned the testimony of Admiral Gortney and General Kelly and how the non-defense and defense sides of the budget work together to protect our homeland. Indeed, helicopters and cutters from the Coast Guard, which falls on the non-defense side of the ledger, are critical to stopping drug smuggling and human trafficking into the homeland. And General Kelly made clear that, because of the limited number of Coast Guard cutters available, they are only stopping about 20 percent of the traffic--and there is a direct correlation: the more cutters they have, the more trafficking they can stop. Senator McCain and Senator Graham have been trying repeatedly to increase spending for defense accounts. Their absolute commitment to the men and women of the armed services is without question. However, they have been compelled, by those opposed to an increase of the base budgets of the Armed Forces and who favor the continuation of sequestration, to resort to a budgetary gimmick. They would use the Overseas Contingency Operation account to try and increase defense spending to the President's base level of $561 billion. First, I believe we should just eliminate the sequester all together, and that means going to the Budget Control Act cap of $577 billion for defense in FY16. Second, using OCO as an escape valve as my Republican colleagues have suggested isn't sustainable. It is a gimmick and as we have heard in testimony, OCO funding isn't flexible as discretionary spending and could damage our long-term readiness. General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, made this point: So first, I would just say there's a risk to not funding the base, in putting it in OCO, because with that has to come flexibility within OCO for us to spend it on the things that are necessary. So . . . because 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're not able to spend it. General Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, made a similar point in describing the Air Force's need for modernization and how one-off funding through OCO particularly constrains its platform-based force. That is not how we should support the greatest fighting force in history. This may seem to be a clever way to bypass the Budget Control Act, but it has real ramifications for our men and women in uniform. Indeed, the problem with these approaches is that they don't work. And, it seems even Senator Graham's amendment to boost OCO funding in the budget runs into technical difficulties. Indeed, it does not appear to do what it purports to do--to boost defense spending--because it fails to lift the actual OCO cap. Now, it is true that a budget resolution isn't law, but plays an important role in the process of governing and setting the rules for our appropriations process. Now, I expect there will be an attempt to correct that on the floor, but we shouldn't be engaging in these diversions to begin with. We should be crafting a budget that is serious and acknowledges our economic and security needs. So my colleagues and I are offering several amendments in order to demonstrate there is a better path and to address some of the glaring problems with this budget. However, as we have seen with Senator Sander's reasonable attempt to provide $478 billion in transportation funding, paid-for by closing egregious offshore tax loopholes, my colleagues refuse to agree to the kind of commonsense proposals that I believe a vast majority of Americans would support. But I hope my colleagues can join with me on some of these types of measures like ones to establish a budget point of order that will keep borrowing costs down for students; closing egregious offshore tax loopholes--which during our last budget debate was a bipartisan amendment adopted by voice vote; or lowering drug prices for seniors by letting the Secretary of HHS negotiate drug prices--indeed, it is particularly troubling that many pharmaceutical companies dodge taxes through offshore tax loopholes, but profit off of Medicare, and are legally protected from having to negotiate drug prices with the government. We have a blueprint for responsibly managing the budget and meeting the needs of a great and growing nation. It requires a balance of cuts, which we have done already, and new revenue. And as we see demonstrated by the Republican budget, we cannot cut our way to prosperity--much less cut our way towards a balanced budget. And we all know that the best way forward is to promote broad-based economic growth so that millions of hardworking Americans and their families can have a brighter and stable economic future. So I hope my colleagues on the other side will join with us in supporting amendments that put middle-class families and broad-based economic growth first.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act with Senator Murray. Timely and effective trauma care is critical to ensuring lifesaving interventions for those who have serious injuries. Nationally, trauma is the leading cause of death in the United States for individuals aged 44 and younger. According to the National Trauma Institute, trauma accounts for 41 million emergency room visits and 2.3 million hospital admissions across the country each year. The nation's trauma and emergency medical systems are designed to respond quickly and efficiently to get seriously injured individuals to the appropriate trauma center hospital within the ``golden hour,'' the time period when medical intervention is most effective in saving lives and preserving function. Achieving this standard of access requires maintenance and careful coordination between organized systems of trauma care. The Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act builds on my previous efforts to improve trauma care, which is an essential component of our care system. Last year, the President signed into law legislation I introduced, the Improving Trauma Care Act, which includes burn injuries in the definition of trauma care. Previously, the statutory definitions of trauma were inconsistent and outdated. Most notably, the law defined trauma in a way that excluded burn injuries, preventing burn centers from being able to apply for funding made available under trauma and emergency care programs. The Improving Trauma Care Act updated the Federal definition of trauma to include burns, a change that more appropriately reflects the relationship between burns and other traumatic injuries. This was an important step, but more must be done. The legislation we are introducing today would reauthorize two important grant programs: Trauma Care Systems Planning Grants, which support State and rural development of trauma systems, and Regionalization of Emergency Care Systems Pilot Projects, which provide funds to design, implement, and evaluate innovative models of regionalized emergency care. The bill would also direct States to update their model trauma care plan with the input of relevant stakeholders. These critical programs support emergency care in communities across the country. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and working toward its expeditious passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act with Senator Murray. Timely and effective trauma care is critical to ensuring lifesaving interventions for those who have serious injuries. Nationally, trauma is the leading cause of death in the United States for individuals aged 44 and younger. According to the National Trauma Institute, trauma accounts for 41 million emergency room visits and 2.3 million hospital admissions across the country each year. The nation's trauma and emergency medical systems are designed to respond quickly and efficiently to get seriously injured individuals to the appropriate trauma center hospital within the ``golden hour,'' the time period when medical intervention is most effective in saving lives and preserving function. Achieving this standard of access requires maintenance and careful coordination between organized systems of trauma care. The Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act builds on my previous efforts to improve trauma care, which is an essential component of our care system. Last year, the President signed into law legislation I introduced, the Improving Trauma Care Act, which includes burn injuries in the definition of trauma care. Previously, the statutory definitions of trauma were inconsistent and outdated. Most notably, the law defined trauma in a way that excluded burn injuries, preventing burn centers from being able to apply for funding made available under trauma and emergency care programs. The Improving Trauma Care Act updated the Federal definition of trauma to include burns, a change that more appropriately reflects the relationship between burns and other traumatic injuries. This was an important step, but more must be done. The legislation we are introducing today would reauthorize two important grant programs: Trauma Care Systems Planning Grants, which support State and rural development of trauma systems, and Regionalization of Emergency Care Systems Pilot Projects, which provide funds to design, implement, and evaluate innovative models of regionalized emergency care. The bill would also direct States to update their model trauma care plan with the input of relevant stakeholders. These critical programs support emergency care in communities across the country. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and working toward its expeditious passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Menendez in introducing the Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act to finally define the offense of insider trading. The need for this legislation is long overdue because, in the absence of a statutory definition, an inconsistent and complicated body of common law has developed as the courts have used varying interpretations of anti-fraud statutes in order to decide insider trading cases. For illustrative purposes, consider the following example. A financial analyst receives information from an insider at XYZ Corporation, which contains XYZ's earnings before this information is publicly released. This analyst then shares this inside information with his portfolio manager who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. Based on this hypothetical, I suspect most Americans would be skeptical about someone who learned of a company's earnings before this information was publicly released and then subsequently traded on such information. Indeed, I believe most would agree that such a person was given an unfair advantage in our securities markets. However, on December 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman decided that the portfolio managers in this case were not guilty of insider trading because as the New York Times summarized it, ``prosecutors had to show that both men knew that the original source of the inside information had breached a fiduciary duty and had received a personal benefit in return.'' This decision defies common sense. It should not matter whether someone, who traded on material information that was not publicly available, knew whether the source of such information breached a fiduciary duty and additionally received a personal benefit in return for sharing this inside information. Such a decision is one of many that has caused too many of our citizens to lose faith in government and our courts. Indeed, some prosecutors have noted that the Second Circuit's decision in Newman ``might make it difficult to file charges against a parent who passes on a confidential stock tip to one of his children without receiving anything in return.'' This is plainly not right and contributes to a larger sense of injustice. The greater irony, however, is that those who deal with insider trading law the most agree that something must be done to restore reason. For example, Duke Law School Professor James D. Cox noted that ``all studies of significant corporate events document that a significant portion of the market movement associated with corporate events occurs before the event is announced; for example, forty to fifty percent of the price gain associated with a merger or takeover occurs before the transaction's announcement . . . One can thus surmise not only that corporate insiders are not very good about keeping secrets, but that their tippees are delighted that they do not. That is, remote tippees are likely both pervasive and truly are insidious. Newman pours gas onto this raging fire.'' Most ironically, Judge Barrington Parker of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who delivered the Newman opinion remarked during oral arguments, ``I'm concerned the government's position on key points of the law seems to vary based depending on which judge you're talking to.'' Moreover, University of North Carolina Law School Professor Thomas Lee Hazen recently stated, ``no matter how narrow or broad people believe the definition of insider trading should be, virtually everyone is now in agreement that we'd be a lot better off if Congress would simply bite the bullet and define it . . . the situation is a mess. That's how you end up with cases like Newman.'' This is precisely what Senator Menendez and I are doing in introducing this legislation today. We are seeking to finally define the offense of insider trading with a clear and simple bright line rule. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of material information that the person knows or has reason to know is not publicly available, then they have engaged in unlawful insider trading. Under our legislation, it is irrelevant whether the trader knew of the source's fiduciary duty or whether the source derived any personal benefit. What matters is whether the trader knew or has reason to know that such trader had an unfair advantage in being given material information that was not shared with the broader public. In addition, we have taken care to ensure that those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources can trade on this independently developed information so that publicly available information can be analyzed and interpreted without fear of liability. Lastly, because there may be situations that do not necessarily rise to the level of unlawful insider trading, we have provided the Securities and Exchange Commission with the flexibility to provide exemptions from insider trading liability as long as such exemptions are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. In short, by making it an offense for those who contribute to a securities market rigged in favor of the well connected, our legislation focuses on providing everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading, and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice, have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and amateur investors alike. I would like to thank Senator Menendez for working with me on this legislation. I also thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Menendez in introducing the Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act to finally define the offense of insider trading. The need for this legislation is long overdue because, in the absence of a statutory definition, an inconsistent and complicated body of common law has developed as the courts have used varying interpretations of anti-fraud statutes in order to decide insider trading cases. For illustrative purposes, consider the following example. A financial analyst receives information from an insider at XYZ Corporation, which contains XYZ's earnings before this information is publicly released. This analyst then shares this inside information with his portfolio manager who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. Based on this hypothetical, I suspect most Americans would be skeptical about someone who learned of a company's earnings before this information was publicly released and then subsequently traded on such information. Indeed, I believe most would agree that such a person was given an unfair advantage in our securities markets. However, on December 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman decided that the portfolio managers in this case were not guilty of insider trading because as the New York Times summarized it, ``prosecutors had to show that both men knew that the original source of the inside information had breached a fiduciary duty and had received a personal benefit in return.'' This decision defies common sense. It should not matter whether someone, who traded on material information that was not publicly available, knew whether the source of such information breached a fiduciary duty and additionally received a personal benefit in return for sharing this inside information. Such a decision is one of many that has caused too many of our citizens to lose faith in government and our courts. Indeed, some prosecutors have noted that the Second Circuit's decision in Newman ``might make it difficult to file charges against a parent who passes on a confidential stock tip to one of his children without receiving anything in return.'' This is plainly not right and contributes to a larger sense of injustice. The greater irony, however, is that those who deal with insider trading law the most agree that something must be done to restore reason. For example, Duke Law School Professor James D. Cox noted that ``all studies of significant corporate events document that a significant portion of the market movement associated with corporate events occurs before the event is announced; for example, forty to fifty percent of the price gain associated with a merger or takeover occurs before the transaction's announcement . . . One can thus surmise not only that corporate insiders are not very good about keeping secrets, but that their tippees are delighted that they do not. That is, remote tippees are likely both pervasive and truly are insidious. Newman pours gas onto this raging fire.'' Most ironically, Judge Barrington Parker of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who delivered the Newman opinion remarked during oral arguments, ``I'm concerned the government's position on key points of the law seems to vary based depending on which judge you're talking to.'' Moreover, University of North Carolina Law School Professor Thomas Lee Hazen recently stated, ``no matter how narrow or broad people believe the definition of insider trading should be, virtually everyone is now in agreement that we'd be a lot better off if Congress would simply bite the bullet and define it . . . the situation is a mess. That's how you end up with cases like Newman.'' This is precisely what Senator Menendez and I are doing in introducing this legislation today. We are seeking to finally define the offense of insider trading with a clear and simple bright line rule. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of material information that the person knows or has reason to know is not publicly available, then they have engaged in unlawful insider trading. Under our legislation, it is irrelevant whether the trader knew of the source's fiduciary duty or whether the source derived any personal benefit. What matters is whether the trader knew or has reason to know that such trader had an unfair advantage in being given material information that was not shared with the broader public. In addition, we have taken care to ensure that those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources can trade on this independently developed information so that publicly available information can be analyzed and interpreted without fear of liability. Lastly, because there may be situations that do not necessarily rise to the level of unlawful insider trading, we have provided the Securities and Exchange Commission with the flexibility to provide exemptions from insider trading liability as long as such exemptions are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. In short, by making it an offense for those who contribute to a securities market rigged in favor of the well connected, our legislation focuses on providing everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading, and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice, have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and amateur investors alike. I would like to thank Senator Menendez for working with me on this legislation. I also thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representatives Thompson and DeSaulnier for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. The importance of family engagement begins even before a child enters school. For example, Scholastic's recent Kids and Family Reading Report found that among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 5-7 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. Too often, however, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote and strengthen meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. Our legislation will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from one percent to 2 percent of the district's Title I allocation. It will also improve the quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside at least 0.3 percent of the State Title I allocation for statewide family engagement in education activities, such as establishing statewide family engagement centers to continue and enhance the work that had been supported through the Parent Information Resource Centers. For States with Title I-A allocations above $60 million, grants will be provided to at least one local family engagement in education center to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and to support activities in the highest need areas of the State. Finally, at the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. This legislation builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in forthcoming legislation to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representatives Thompson and DeSaulnier for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. The importance of family engagement begins even before a child enters school. For example, Scholastic's recent Kids and Family Reading Report found that among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 5-7 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. Too often, however, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote and strengthen meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. Our legislation will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from one percent to 2 percent of the district's Title I allocation. It will also improve the quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside at least 0.3 percent of the State Title I allocation for statewide family engagement in education activities, such as establishing statewide family engagement centers to continue and enhance the work that had been supported through the Parent Information Resource Centers. For States with Title I-A allocations above $60 million, grants will be provided to at least one local family engagement in education center to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and to support activities in the highest need areas of the State. Finally, at the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. This legislation builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in forthcoming legislation to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 2010, I worked to include a provision with similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but it was ultimately not included in the final version of this law. I noted then that, ``if the Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington are required to be confirmed by the Senate, then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who played a pivotal and perhaps more powerful role in obligating taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis, should also be subject to the same public confirmation process.'' In short, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks. For instance, along with the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve System who each require Senate confirmation, the president of the New York Fed is a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, and also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is a significant distinction because the FOMC establishes the Federal Reserve System's monetary policy, which in the wake of the financial crisis resulted in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet growing to almost five times what it was before the crisis in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates. Also, the New York Fed is solely responsible for implementing an aspect of monetary policy known as open market operations through which U.S. Treasury securities are purchased and sold on a secondary basis to influence the levels of bank reserves. This means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving considerable advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, the New York Fed is entrusted with protecting the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets. According to the New York Fed itself, ``though it serves a geographically small area compared with those of other Federal Reserve Banks, the New York Fed is the largest Reserve Bank in terms of assets and volume of activity.'' Indeed, the New York Fed in its regulatory role is not only in charge of supervising some of the largest banks in the country, but also some of the most active financial institutions. While this is not a comprehensive list of the New York Fed's special and distinctive responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the powerful and pivotal role the New York Fed plays in implementing our Nation's monetary policy and enforcing our banking laws. As such, we should have every expectation that the New York Fed has the public interest in mind to the fullest extent when it conducts its duties. Unfortunately, these expectations have not been met. Last year, the Office of Inspector General, OIG, of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System described the New York Fed's oversight efforts with respect to one large banking institution that eventually suffered billions of dollars in trading losses as a ``missed opportunity.'' Additionally, a report aired in September of last year on the public radio program ``This American Life'' cast doubt on whether changes the New York Fed made after the financial collapse to address regulatory capture were sufficient to ensure it would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster. All of this is unsettling, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability so that we can be better assured of the New York Fed's ability to address potential financial pitfalls in advance. By subjecting the president of the New York Fed to the confirmation process, an important check and balance will be added. The Senate will have an opportunity to evaluate whether a nominee has the experience, character, judgment, and skills to serve effectively as one of the most powerful banking regulators in the country, if not the world. Also, this legislation requires the New York Fed president to testify before the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee at least once a year, so that Congress no longer has to negotiate about whether the New York Fed president will appear before Congress for oversight hearings. Simply put, this legislation is about holding the New York Fed accountable. The New York Fed is just too powerful to be left unchecked. I thank Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and the Independent Community Bankers of America for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 2010, I worked to include a provision with similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but it was ultimately not included in the final version of this law. I noted then that, ``if the Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington are required to be confirmed by the Senate, then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who played a pivotal and perhaps more powerful role in obligating taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis, should also be subject to the same public confirmation process.'' In short, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks. For instance, along with the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve System who each require Senate confirmation, the president of the New York Fed is a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, and also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is a significant distinction because the FOMC establishes the Federal Reserve System's monetary policy, which in the wake of the financial crisis resulted in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet growing to almost five times what it was before the crisis in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates. Also, the New York Fed is solely responsible for implementing an aspect of monetary policy known as open market operations through which U.S. Treasury securities are purchased and sold on a secondary basis to influence the levels of bank reserves. This means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving considerable advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, the New York Fed is entrusted with protecting the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets. According to the New York Fed itself, ``though it serves a geographically small area compared with those of other Federal Reserve Banks, the New York Fed is the largest Reserve Bank in terms of assets and volume of activity.'' Indeed, the New York Fed in its regulatory role is not only in charge of supervising some of the largest banks in the country, but also some of the most active financial institutions. While this is not a comprehensive list of the New York Fed's special and distinctive responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the powerful and pivotal role the New York Fed plays in implementing our Nation's monetary policy and enforcing our banking laws. As such, we should have every expectation that the New York Fed has the public interest in mind to the fullest extent when it conducts its duties. Unfortunately, these expectations have not been met. Last year, the Office of Inspector General, OIG, of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System described the New York Fed's oversight efforts with respect to one large banking institution that eventually suffered billions of dollars in trading losses as a ``missed opportunity.'' Additionally, a report aired in September of last year on the public radio program ``This American Life'' cast doubt on whether changes the New York Fed made after the financial collapse to address regulatory capture were sufficient to ensure it would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster. All of this is unsettling, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability so that we can be better assured of the New York Fed's ability to address potential financial pitfalls in advance. By subjecting the president of the New York Fed to the confirmation process, an important check and balance will be added. The Senate will have an opportunity to evaluate whether a nominee has the experience, character, judgment, and skills to serve effectively as one of the most powerful banking regulators in the country, if not the world. Also, this legislation requires the New York Fed president to testify before the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee at least once a year, so that Congress no longer has to negotiate about whether the New York Fed president will appear before Congress for oversight hearings. Simply put, this legislation is about holding the New York Fed accountable. The New York Fed is just too powerful to be left unchecked. I thank Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and the Independent Community Bankers of America for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for his very clear and thoughtful conduct of these hearings with respect to Dr. Carter. The reason we are here today on the verge of a very strong vote for Dr. Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense is due to the contribution that Chairman McCain has made to this process, which was extremely thoughtful and bipartisan. I thank him again for that. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain, and I not only commend him for his leadership but I also wish to express my strong support for the nomination of Dr. Ashton Carter to be the 25th Secretary of Defense. Dr. Carter is uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense at a time when--as Henry Kissinger recently said in a hearing before the Armed Services Committee--``the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.'' Dr. Carter was born and raised in Philadelphia. He received a bachelor's degree in physics and medieval history from Yale and a doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. During his career, Dr. Carter has already held three critical positions in the Department of Defense: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global and Strategic Affairs in the Clinton administration; Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from 2009 to 2011; and most recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2011 to 2013. He is well aware of, and has already been deeply immersed in, many of the significant challenges facing this Nation and the Defense Department. As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter was a critical player in the discussions and decision making on a myriad of international issues--issues that will continue to need the close attention in his tenure as Secretary of Defense. I wish to name just a few. While the Secretary of Defense is not a party to the negotiations relating to Iran's nuclear program, the Secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential contingencies. In the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, the consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and generations to come, and the Secretary of Defense will be intimately involved in shaping the reaction. Another area of deep concern is ISIL. Their violent campaign in Iraq and Syria to establish an extremist caliphate threatens to erase borders, destabilize the region, and create a breeding ground for foreign fighters willing to return to the West to carry out attacks against the United States and our allies. The Department must provide critical leadership in a coalition effort that includes Arab and Muslim States to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL while being careful to ensure that the United States does not end up, as Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Brzezinski indicated to us in a hearing before the committee, ``owning'' some of these conflicts in Syria and elsewhere. In Afghanistan the hard-won gains of the past decade are significant but remain fragile. As the Afghan National Security Forces continue taking over responsibilities to secure Afghanistan, the United States and coalition forces have transitioned to a more limited mission of training and assisting the Afghan forces and conducting counterterrorism operations. Yet it remains to be seen whether conditions on the ground in Afghanistan will improve sufficiently by the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the current plan. Dr. Carter's participation in evaluating that plan will be absolutely critical. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has raised tensions in Europe to a level not seen in decades. Recently separatists in eastern Ukraine, with substantial Russian equipment, training, and leadership, have abandoned any pretext of a cease-fire, although there were discussions that were held overnight that perhaps might indicate a cease-fire. But in any case, the United States must determine the best way to support the Ukrainian people and their forces in defending their country. Political instability in Yemen has caused the United States to evacuate its Embassy and created a vacuum, allowing the free reign of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is intent on striking the United States and its interests. Again, the Defense Department plays a key role in supporting our partners in Yemen and navigating the complex political situation and continuing to have a presence there--which they do--which can effectively help to preempt any attempt to use that as a launching pad for operations in the region or across the globe. The same brand of violent extremism in the Middle East can also be found in parts of Africa--al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Countering the threat posed by these groups will require building partner capacity and enabling support to foreign security forces at a time when resources are scarce and those capabilities are in high demand. In North Korea, Kim Jong Un's regime has increased tensions on the peninsula with his provocative and belligerent behavior. The recent cyber attack on Sony is just the latest in a string of destabilizing actions. The regime is playing a dangerous game that could have disastrous consequences--especially for its own civilian population which has already suffered untold hardships and deprivation under his leadership. The North Korean regime is painting itself into a corner where it will be left with few friends and few options, and again, the United States, and particularly the Department of Defense, must be ever vigilant. While the United States and China have many areas of coordination and cooperation, our future relationship remains uncertain. We welcome the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China. Especially in this new century of global commerce and economies, a prosperous China is not only in the region's best interests but also in the world's best interest. China's increasingly controversial claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea and dangerous altercations with its neighbors raise serious concerns. While legal and peaceful avenues for dispute resolution are available, China has instead chosen to pursue, in too many cases, adversarial and unilateral actions that raise questions about its intentions. On the cyber front, China is engaged in massive theft of U.S. intellectual property from American industry and government, which threatens our technological edge and sows distrust and profound misgivings. China will remain one of the Department's most persistent and complicated challenges. With the focus on so many crises overseas, it is easy to overlook the challenges on our own continent. We have a violent threat of transnational organized crime in our own hemisphere. When the United States faced a threat stemming from violence and the drug trade in Colombia in the 1990s, it dedicated significant resources and entered into a decade-long commitment to provide training and other enabling assistance. Colombia is a success story, but the problem has simply moved, in many cases, to other nations in the region. General Kelly, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, leads the Department's efforts in the hemisphere, but he operates with scarce resources, a situation that may have serious consequences. In addition to these traditional challenges that nation-states have faced for many, many years, the United States now faces new 21st century threats. For years we have devoted significant attention to the complex challenge of cyber warfare. The attack on the Sony Corporation was a watershed event in many respects, and it should and must stimulate fresh critical thinking. This attack demonstrated that a relatively small and weak rogue nation can reach across the oceans to cause extensive destruction to a U.S.-based economic target and very nearly succeed in suppressing freedom of expression through cyber space. The real and manifest advantages of the offense over the defense in cyber warfare that enable militarily inferior nations to strike successfully against the homeland are a new and worrisome factor for our national security and that requires not only the attention of the Department of Defense but the attention of the Congress. All of the issues I have talked about are external, but there are local issues that the Secretary of Defense has to deal with. Senator McCain pointed out probably the most significant one, and that is the budgetary and programmatic challenges that have been forced upon us by sequestration. The most immediate threat facing the Defense Department is, indeed, sequestration because without resources, the programs, the policies, and the initiatives which must be undertaken to confront these national threats cannot be done. General Mattis, former Commander of Central Command, recently testified before our committee. He said: ``No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today.'' Only one-third of Army brigades are ready to fight. Less than 50 percent of our combat squadrons are fully combat ready. Sequestration threatens not only our national security, but it risks damaging our public safety, our health, our transportation, our education, and our environment. In the world we face, there is not a neat distinction between what the Department of Defense does, what the Department of Homeland Security does, and what other civil agencies such as FEMA must do. It is something that we have to consider, not just in the context of the Department of Defense but in so many other agencies of the Federal Government--in fact, in every agency of the Federal Government. When the Budget Control Act was passed, Dr. Carter organized the Strategic Choices and Management Review to find options for implementing the required defense cuts. The results of this review have helped the Defense Department navigate through difficult fiscal constraints, but Congress must find a balanced and bipartisan solution and a repeal of sequestration across the entire government. Even without sequestration, the Defense Department has to tackle the rising personnel costs which could crowd out other items in the budget. Currently, military personnel benefits, including health care and retirement, consume approximately one-third of the Defense Department's budget. If we are to adequately train and equip the force we have, to ensure they are capable of performing the arduous task we ask of them, and to modernize weapon systems, we must slow the growth of these costs within the Department in line with the slowdown of the overall top line. The congressionally mandated Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission recently released their recommendations. They are far-reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel benefits. They did so with the idea of improving the benefits available to many of our forces. They did it with the idea of insisting that our recruitment and retention efforts continue to be successful because we are a volunteer force. Their focus was really on the troops, but one of the effects of the recommendations was to make these costs sustainable over time. As Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will have to work with Congress to carefully consider these recommendations to ensure that the Department has the resources to properly train and equip its fighting men and women. The other major cost driver in the Defense Department is acquisition. To put it succinctly, defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much, but the Defense Department has undertaken significant reforms in recent years and many of these were personally led by Dr. Carter. As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Dr. Carter oversaw implementation of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, and again, I must commend Senator McCain and Senator Levin for their leadership in this effort. The largest restructuring of DOD acquisition policies in more than two decades resulted from this initiative. He also oversaw and contributed to improvements in a number of major acquisition programs, including the major restructuring on the Joint Strike Fighter program, the largest DOD acquisition program; efforts to reduce the cost of the Virginia-class submarine program and to improve contract performance, which has allowed the Navy to begin a two-per- year procurement program for these submarines, which are under budget and ahead of schedule--a remarkable achievement; improvements to the littoral combat ship program, which was experiencing major costs increases and delays, with Dr. Carter's participation DOD shifted to competitive fixed-price contracts in 2011; restructured procurement for the Air Force's KC-46A strategic tanker program, which led to a competitive procurement, incorporating a firm fixed-price development production contract for buying up to 120 tanker aircraft; and cancelling of the VH-71 program, an out-of-control program to replace the current Presidential helicopter fleet. Clearly not all acquisition problems have been fixed and the Defense Department can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. I believe, from what I have just indicated, that Dr. Carter as Secretary of Defense will do just that. He has already demonstrated he can do it and he will do it. Finally, and most importantly, as Senator McCain indicated, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will be leading 1.3 million Active-Duty military, 820,000 Reserve and Guard, and 773,000 civilians. They are under strain after over a decade of war and years of fiscal uncertainty. They are wrestling with many of the same issues as civilian society--issues such as sexual assault and suicide. Yet they are committed to protecting this Nation and remain the finest force in the world. Every decision Dr. Carter makes, I know he will make it thinking ultimately about what is in the best interests of the men and women in uniform and the DOD civilian workforce who give so much to this country every day, and that, I think, is one of the factors that compels all of us to support this nomination. Dr. Carter has proven time and time again his commitment to the men and women who serve this Nation. I believe he is the right leader at the right time for the Department of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Baba, a detailee on the Finance Committee, be allowed on the Senate floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2015. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to spend more time outside. For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are. The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to States for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction. The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental and educational groups. In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation, 65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly includes environmental literacy. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2015. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to spend more time outside. For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are. The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to States for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction. The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental and educational groups. In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation, 65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly includes environmental literacy. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill aims to end the subsidization of illegal corporate behavior by taxpayers by closing a loophole that allows corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made to the government stemming from settling corporate misdeeds. Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. Under Federal law, money paid to settle corporate civil or criminal penalties is not deductible. But under the tax code, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law. Corporations exploit this provision by later characterizing settlement penalties as restitution and a tax-deductible business expense. I think most would agree that, for example, a corporation should not come to an agreement with the government to pay $500 million in criminal or civil fines and then when they file their taxes count those very fines as a business expense and take a tax windfall. Corporations that do this are effectively using taxpayer dollars to subsidize their illegal behavior. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that of the 34 companies and $1 billion in settlements they examined, 20 companies took a tax deduction for some or all of the money it paid to the government. Those settlements were silent on whether that $1 billion to the government counted as penalties or restitution. According to GAO, in two of those settlements, company representatives said they made a mistake in deducting civil penalty payments totaling $1.9 million and said they would amend their tax returns. To address these practices, the Reed-Grassley bill would amend 162(f) of the tax code and require the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. Our bill also clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non-deductible. Furthermore, it increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts that will be paid by the offending party. Last Congress it was estimated that over a ten-year budget window this legislation would raise $218 million in revenue. With this legislation we can close this tax loophole that flies in the face of sensible and fair tax policy. The tax code should not be used to subsidize illegal activity by corporations. Indeed, when a fine is levied, that fine should not be construed as a legitimate business expense. Instead, it should be paid in full, with no tax deduction taken. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me again on this legislation. He has long championed closing this loophole. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.