Jack Reed

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.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators Cochran and Whitehouse in introducing the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLS, Act. Fifty years ago, when President Johnson urged Congress to enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he specifically called for an investment in school libraries, decrying that school libraries were ``limping along.'' Results from a recent National Center for Education Statistics survey show that there are still gaps in access to school libraries. Approximately 8,800 schools did not report having a library media center, and only about \2/3\ of the traditional public schools that did have libraries reported having a full-time, certified librarian. One in five traditional public schools reported having no paid, State certified library staff at all. Effective school library programs are essential supports for educational success. Multiple education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills. Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the only federal initiative explicitly dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners. The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by requiring State and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the State, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians. Absent a clear Federal investment, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology or cease to exist at all, and in turn, students will be cut off from a vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators Cochran and Whitehouse in introducing the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLS, Act. Fifty years ago, when President Johnson urged Congress to enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he specifically called for an investment in school libraries, decrying that school libraries were ``limping along.'' Results from a recent National Center for Education Statistics survey show that there are still gaps in access to school libraries. Approximately 8,800 schools did not report having a library media center, and only about \2/3\ of the traditional public schools that did have libraries reported having a full-time, certified librarian. One in five traditional public schools reported having no paid, State certified library staff at all. Effective school library programs are essential supports for educational success. Multiple education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills. Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the only federal initiative explicitly dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners. The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by requiring State and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the State, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians. Absent a clear Federal investment, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology or cease to exist at all, and in turn, students will be cut off from a vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act I thank Senators Markey, Stabenow, and Warren for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers. Children who are read to frequently at home are more likely to become frequent readers themselves in later years. Indeed, according to Scholastic's Kids and Families Reading Report, among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 57 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. This highlights the important role that parents play in building their children's literacy skills. To help support the parental role in literacy, the Prescribe a Book Act would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses to discuss with parents the importance of reading aloud to their children and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. I was pleased to see last year that the American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, recognized the important role that pediatric providers play in enhancing children's literacy skills In a policy statement, AAP recommended that pediatric providers promote early literacy development for children from birth to at least kindergarten entry, including by counseling parents on the importance of reading to their children and through providing age-appropriate books to high-risk, low-income young children. Evidence shows that that the pediatric literacy model works. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the Reach out and Read program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. Building on existing efforts, which in the past have been supported by Federal funding included in the appropriations process and distributed by the Department of Education, and matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments, the Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization modeled on this type of successful public-private partnership. By so doing, it would leverage Federal dollars to expand pediatric literacy initiatives so that more young children reap the developmental benefits of having books at home and being read to by their parents. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Prescribe a Book Act, and to work to include its provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act I thank Senators Markey, Stabenow, and Warren for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers. Children who are read to frequently at home are more likely to become frequent readers themselves in later years. Indeed, according to Scholastic's Kids and Families Reading Report, among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 57 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. This highlights the important role that parents play in building their children's literacy skills. To help support the parental role in literacy, the Prescribe a Book Act would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses to discuss with parents the importance of reading aloud to their children and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. I was pleased to see last year that the American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, recognized the important role that pediatric providers play in enhancing children's literacy skills In a policy statement, AAP recommended that pediatric providers promote early literacy development for children from birth to at least kindergarten entry, including by counseling parents on the importance of reading to their children and through providing age-appropriate books to high-risk, low-income young children. Evidence shows that that the pediatric literacy model works. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the Reach out and Read program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. Building on existing efforts, which in the past have been supported by Federal funding included in the appropriations process and distributed by the Department of Education, and matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments, the Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization modeled on this type of successful public-private partnership. By so doing, it would leverage Federal dollars to expand pediatric literacy initiatives so that more young children reap the developmental benefits of having books at home and being read to by their parents. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Prescribe a Book Act, and to work to include its provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paulina Rippere, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of the 114th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute on the Reed-Collins amendment.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment, which I am proud to sponsor with Senator Collins of Maine. It would express the sense of the Senate that we should fund LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, at $4.7 billion. We have seen a significant diminution of the LIHEAP funding over the years. This amendment helps every aspect of the country. It helps low-income households, particularly seniors. It would help immensely families throughout this country. In the winter it is about heating oil in New England and Alaska and all through the north and central plains. In the summer it is about cooling in the southwest and the southeast. If families and households can't get access to these resources, they have to make a hard choice between literally paying for their energy or sometimes their rent or sometimes their food. This program has been long supported on a bipartisan basis. We should aim for this figure. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I would like to talk about an amendment I filed along with my colleague Susan Collins of Maine to support the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program. As the Senate continues to debate whether to bypass a longstanding Presidential permitting process and essentially rubberstamp the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--which, to be clear, would likely benefit major oil companies and could have a harmful consequence on our environment--I wish to take the opportunity to highlight a Federal program that helps our country's most vulnerable citizens, including seniors, meet their home energy needs. The bipartisan amendment led by Senator Collins and me, along with several of our colleagues, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--better known as LIHEAP-- should be funded at no less than $4.7 billion annually to ensure that more low-income households--those with children, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and veterans--are able to access this critical assistance. I must commend Senator Collins. She and I have taken the lead on this effort over many sessions of Congress. Her efforts are extraordinarily critical for the continued support of this program, and it is no surprise that once again we are both together urging our colleagues to support this program. LIHEAP is the main Federal program that helps low-income families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and a growing number of veterans across the country pay their energy bills. It provides vital assistance during the cold winter months often seen in the Northeast, the Northern Plains, and across the northern part of the country, and also during the summer months in areas of the Southeast and Southwest where air-conditioning is absolutely critical to the health and welfare of seniors. Unfortunately, we often read very disturbing reports of individuals, particularly seniors, with serious medical conditions that can become fatal because they simply can't afford the cost of air- conditioning or home heating. This is not a program that is regionally specific; this is a program that has a national impact and, as such, has to be supported. It is an indispensable lifeline that ensures recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities such as food and medicine. The funding also supports many small businesses, such as oil heating companies. They see the benefits of LIHEAP as well. It goes to pay utility bills, which indirectly affects small businesses and individual ratepayers across a broad spectrum. So the benefits of this legislation are not just for the specific recipients but also for the overall economy of our States and for small businesses, and that has to be noted. We also recognize that there are many more households eligible than receive the benefits simply because the funding levels are insufficient. Despite bipartisan efforts over many years--again, with Senator Collins being right there--funding reductions in 2011 and 2012, along with sequester cuts, mean LIHEAP funding has declined more than 30 percent since fiscal year 2010, from $5.1 billion down to about $3.4 billion. This raises another bigger issue. We have seen our deficit decline significantly, from 9.8 percent of gross domestic product now to about 2.8 percent. In fact, that is a little bit below the 40-year average of deficits in the United States. This hasn't been just because of magic; it is because we have been cutting programs. This is an example of one of the programs we have cut very significantly, and it is a program that aids so many people in our communities--particularly seniors and people with disabilities. This deficit reduction has been hard won, and one of the costs has been supporting these people. The money has shrunk, so obviously the number of people serviced has shrunk. The number of households LIHEAP funds has declined by 17 percent, from about 8.1 million households to 6.7 million households, and they have seen this impact directly. Those receiving assistance have also seen their average LIHEAP grant reduced by about $100, down to about $400. This is estimated to cover less than half of the average home heating costs for a household this winter, meaning that many low-income families and seniors will have fewer resources available to meet other basic needs. I must point out that we are seeing a temporary reprieve from very high energy prices--particularly oil prices in the Northeast--because of geopolitical developments that have impacted the price of oil. But that is not the solution. The bills these people face, even in this economic climate as well as meteorological climate, are still significant and challenging to people of very limited means. For many people, this is an issue of safety, it is an issue of their health, and it is an issue of just being able to get by and make ends meet. So the need is clear, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of LIHEAP and in support of this amendment. In this context, we need to be proactive in terms of recognizing something we can do on a bipartisan basis that works. I do believe I should also comment at this moment on the underlying proposal, the Keystone XL Pipeline. We understand this TransCanada pipeline would move crude oil from the Canadian tar sands--one of the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet-- to refineries on our gulf coast. There are many ways to extract hydrocarbons, and this is one of the most environmentally challenging ways. Constructing this pipeline runs counter to what we should be doing on a much broader basis, which is addressing climate change and protecting the environment. I was struck yesterday at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and the Presiding Officer is a distinguished and very valuable member of that committee--where we listened to Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, two of the foremost experts on national security policy. General Scowcroft was National Security Adviser for President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Dr. Brzezinski was National Security Adviser for President Carter and was integral in negotiating the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. I was struck, when asked about the big issues we face, that General Scowcroft said: Well, there are two big issues--cyber security and climate change. When you have these very authoritative individuals--again on a bipartisan basis-- essentially saying climate change is a big national security issue, that is the context in which we have to view so many things, in particular this issue of the Keystone Pipeline. The second issue is the obvious need in this country to create jobs. In fact--no pun intended--that is job number 1 for us. Now, there are jobs associated with the pipeline. Even if they are of short duration, they are still pretty good jobs. But the point has to be made that we have to do much more--particularly for our construction workers--than one single pipeline. I have been told that long-term employment of the pipeline, once it is built--will be very small. We have to do much more. That is why I think we have to be very serious about an infrastructure program that goes way beyond Keystone and includes roads, bridges, sewers--all these things we have let decline. If we look at the spending levels--once again, a victim of our deficit reduction, a victim of the cuts we have made--we are at a level now where we are not doing what our fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, and mothers did, which is invest a lot of money in building infrastructure for a productive America. We have been missing in action for the last several years as far as doing those things we used to do routinely--building new highways, building new sewer systems, improving our pollution control systems, all of those things. We have to do that. We also have to do those things in the context of climate change--in other words, look at alternative energy and not just replicate what we did 20 or 30 years ago because this is a different planet. According to the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups, repairing America's crumbling infrastructure could create 2.7 million jobs across the economy, increase GDP by $377 billion, while reducing carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions. So it is not thousands of jobs; it is millions of jobs. It is not one project; it is a commitment to improving, advancing, and rehabilitating our infrastructure in every part of the country, while at the same time dealing with climate change, which is so central. So, I would like to see us, as we move past this debate, move vigorously into a debate about infrastructure. There is another issue too, and that is this debate about where the oil is going. Well, given the global market for petroleum products, it could go to parts of the United States, but it could easily go overseas. A lot of that is a factor of the price and the demand. We have seen a lot of oil going into Asia in particular. I think that trend will continue for several reasons. One reason is that they have done less, relatively speaking, than many other parts of the world in terms of lowering their dependence on oil and moving to alternative fuels. So the potential is that a significant amount, if not all, of this product--even though it reaches the gulf coast--will not be used in the United States. That is another factor we have to consider. Bypassing the administration's traditional legislative review process with respect to Keystone is not the way to proceed. We have to get our energy policies right. I think we have to recognize climate change. We have to be sensitive to a whole host of issues. We also have to recognize that an energy policy is not just producing and getting these products into the marketplace, it is also making sure that very vulnerable Americans can afford these products, whatever their prices may be. That is where LIHEAP comes in. I am very pleased, once again, that this is a continuation of a bipartisan effort Senator Collins and many others have pursued for the benefit of families all across this country. When we are doing that, I think we are doing the best possible work we can for our constituents and our Nation. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 74.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which I strongly support. As I have emphasized in the past, reauthorizing TRIA is vital. In addition to serving on the Banking Committee, I also now serve as the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Committee, and it is through this dual perspective, and from what we know of the significant terrorist threats our Nation still faces, that I am convinced that there is value in reauthorizing TRIA. We must keep markets effectively operating in light of these threats. We must continue to have policies in place to make sure our economy stays on track in the event of another attack on our nation. In short, reauthorizing TRIA is not only a matter of economic security, it is also a matter of national security. I believe most of my colleagues share this view, and it is one of the many reasons why the Senate in the last Congress was able to pass a TRIA reauthorization bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a vote of 93 to 4 in July of last year. This did not happen by accident but through a concerted bipartisan effort in the Senate to steer clear of controversial and ideological demands on both sides of the aisle in an earnest attempt to work together in defense of our country and our economy. We are here today because the House of Representatives did not abide by these same principles and insisted on including in the reauthorization bill an unrelated provision that would weaken the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform Act. This provision effectively prevents the banking regulators, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, from calling for margin or collateral protections if they happen to notice excessive risk in derivatives transactions with commercial end users. In short, this bill would prevent our financial regulators from utilizing this tool to protect our markets. Especially in the wake of the financial crisis, it would seem that we should be providing our regulators with all the necessary tools to limit excessive risk instead of limiting their ability to protect our markets. Indeed, the financial regulators have already been exercising the discretion we gave them in Dodd-Frank to exempt commercial end users from having to post margin through a proposed rule. But by passing this provision today, we eliminate this discretion to protect our markets through this particular tool even when the facts on the ground may call for its use in the name of market integrity. For example, in December of last year, Reuters published an article that explained the unexpected risks that certain commercial end users are facing in light of falling oil prices. The article noted, ``with oil prices tumbling faster and further than anyone had anticipated, the collar hedges left the airlines with insurance against high costs they no longer need and on the hook for protection they sold against a further slide, with potential liabilities on the rise.'' In short, even commercial end users face risks, both expected and unexpected, in their derivatives transactions, and if the circumstances call for it, we should be giving our regulators the necessary tools to police and protect our markets; not further restricting them. All of this goes back to the need for considering these very complicated and consequential bills that impact our financial markets in a deliberative manner, not through attaching them at the last minute to unrelated and must pass bills. I voted against the Omnibus Appropriations bill in the last Congress, in part, because it repealed section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which sought to prevent bank subsidiaries that are covered by federal deposit insurance or that take advantage of Federal Reserve lending programs from engaging in the riskiest derivatives trades. In essence, the riskiest derivatives trades would have been pushed out from these subsidiaries in an effort to reduce systemic risk and provide greater assurances that Wall Street gambles would not be subsidized by taxpayers. Unfortunately, this provision was repealed before it even had the chance to be fully implemented by the regulators. During my tenure as the then-chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, I spent many hours working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to thoughtfully and carefully develop a derivatives compromise. While our effort was transformed during the conference on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, I am keenly aware of just how complicated derivatives can be, and I have come to see that even the most seemingly innocuous provisions can have devastating and unintended consequences. Everyone should understand by now that the last thing Congress should be doing is passing derivatives legislation with little deliberation as part of any must pass legislation. This assault, bit by bit, on the Dodd-Frank Act must stop. It is a disservice to the seriousness of this issue, to our constituents, and to our economy. Lately, my Republican colleagues have called for working cooperatively through the committee process, and I welcome this opportunity. While this did not happen with this particular derivatives provision, I hope my Republican colleagues will do so in the future. For these reasons, I support the Warren amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Core Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representative Fudge for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This year, we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to educational equity, and in the words of President Johnson ``bridge the gap between helplessness and hope.'' As we embark upon reauthorizing this landmark legislation, we must ensure that our accountability systems in education measure our progress towards equity and excellence for all children. The CORE Act will help advance that goal by requiring states to include fair and equitable access to the core resources for learning in their accountability systems. More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, one of the great challenges still facing this nation is stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics, we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that fails to provide resources and opportunities for the children who need them the most. We should look to hold our education system accountable for results and resources. And we know that resources matter. A recent study by researchers at Northwestern University and the University of California at Berkeley found that increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for low-income students over the course of their K-12 schooling results in greater high school completion, higher levels of educational attainment, increased lifetime earnings, and reduced adult poverty. In addition to funding, there are other opportunity gaps that we need to address. Survey data from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights show troubling disparities, such as the fact that Black, Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers; nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor; and between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the nation do not offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry. We are reintroducing the CORE Act to ensure that equity remains at the center of our federal education policy. Specifically, the CORE Act will require state accountability plans and state and district report cards to include measures on how well the state and districts provide the core resources for learning to their students. These resources include: high quality instructional teams, including licensed and profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, counselors, and education support staff; rigorous academic standards and curricula that lead to college and career readiness by high school graduation and are accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; equitable and instructionally appropriate class sizes; up-to-date instructional materials, technology, and supplies; effective school library programs; school facilities and technology, including physically and environmentally sound buildings and well- equipped instructional space, including laboratories and libraries; specialized instructional support teams, such as counselors, social workers, nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective family and community engagement programs. These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect and demand. We should do no less for children in economically disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students or English learners or students with disabilities. Under the CORE Act, States that fail to make progress on resource equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts identified for improvement, the State would have to identify gaps in access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in partnership with the local school district to address those gaps. The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, Coalition for Community Schools, Education Law Center, Fair Test, First Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, National Latino Education Research and Policy Project, Opportunity Action, Public Advocacy for Kids, Public Advocates, Inc., Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the Texas Center for Education Policy. Working with this strong group of advocates and my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can build the support to include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Core Opportunity Resources for Equity and Excellence Act with my colleague Senator Brown. I would also like to thank Representative Fudge for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This year, we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to educational equity, and in the words of President Johnson ``bridge the gap between helplessness and hope.'' As we embark upon reauthorizing this landmark legislation, we must ensure that our accountability systems in education measure our progress towards equity and excellence for all children. The CORE Act will help advance that goal by requiring states to include fair and equitable access to the core resources for learning in their accountability systems. More than 60 years after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, one of the great challenges still facing this nation is stemming the tide of rising inequality. We have seen the rich get richer while middle class and low-income families have lost ground. We see disparities in opportunity starting at birth and growing over a lifetime. With more than one in five school-aged children living in families in poverty, according to Department of Education statistics, we cannot afford nor should we tolerate a public education system that fails to provide resources and opportunities for the children who need them the most. We should look to hold our education system accountable for results and resources. And we know that resources matter. A recent study by researchers at Northwestern University and the University of California at Berkeley found that increasing per pupil spending by 20 percent for low-income students over the course of their K-12 schooling results in greater high school completion, higher levels of educational attainment, increased lifetime earnings, and reduced adult poverty. In addition to funding, there are other opportunity gaps that we need to address. Survey data from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights show troubling disparities, such as the fact that Black, Latino, American Indian, Native Alaskan students, and English learners attend schools with higher concentrations of inexperienced teachers; nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor; and between 10 and 25 percent of high schools across the nation do not offer more than one of the core courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science, such as Algebra I and II, geometry, biology, and chemistry. We are reintroducing the CORE Act to ensure that equity remains at the center of our federal education policy. Specifically, the CORE Act will require state accountability plans and state and district report cards to include measures on how well the state and districts provide the core resources for learning to their students. These resources include: high quality instructional teams, including licensed and profession-ready teachers, principals, school librarians, counselors, and education support staff; rigorous academic standards and curricula that lead to college and career readiness by high school graduation and are accessible to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners; equitable and instructionally appropriate class sizes; up-to-date instructional materials, technology, and supplies; effective school library programs; school facilities and technology, including physically and environmentally sound buildings and well- equipped instructional space, including laboratories and libraries; specialized instructional support teams, such as counselors, social workers, nurses, and other qualified professionals; and effective family and community engagement programs. These are things that parents in well-resourced communities expect and demand. We should do no less for children in economically disadvantaged communities. We should do no less for minority students or English learners or students with disabilities. Under the CORE Act, States that fail to make progress on resource equity would not be eligible to apply for competitive grants authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For school districts identified for improvement, the State would have to identify gaps in access to the core resources for learning and develop an action plan in partnership with the local school district to address those gaps. The CORE Act is supported by a diverse group of organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, American Library Association, Coalition for Community Schools, Education Law Center, Fair Test, First Focus Campaign for Children, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, National Latino Education Research and Policy Project, Opportunity Action, Public Advocacy for Kids, Public Advocates, Inc., Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the Texas Center for Education Policy. Working with this strong group of advocates and my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, it is my hope that we can build the support to include the CORE Act in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the House has sent us a $42 billion year- long extension of several tax provisions known as tax extenders. This year-long extension is unpaid for, and while I will support this measure because several provisions in this bill need to be extended-- and soon--I must raise concerns about the approach here to once again stack the deck against middle-class families. They rightfully are concerned that they have been left out--and continually so--in policies that this body finds the will to pass. Case in point is the effort I engaged in all year with my Republican colleague, Senator Heller, to restore emergency unemployment insurance benefits for 1.3 million Americans. Now this program is typically considered an emergency measure because it has been fundamental to supporting our economic recovery, and as such the $24 billion cost to extend the program through 2014 would normally not be paid for. Well this year that was not the case and several of my colleagues, particularly House Republicans, insisted that this typical emergency measure be offset for it to get consideration. So Senator Heller and I worked with several of our colleagues to craft a paid-for measure that would extend the program for 5 months. That paid-for bill passed the Senate, but the House has since refused to give it an up-or-down vote--despite the fact that it met the condition of being paid-for and the Congressional Budget Office had estimated a full year extension of the program would create 200,000 jobs and boost economic growth by 0.2 percent of GDP. So it strikes me as incredibly one-sided and patently unfair that House Republicans would send us a $42 billion unpaid-for retroactive year-long extension of tax provisions that would not generate the same kind of economic boost as UI, but they still would not consider helping the long-term unemployed as they search for work. Indeed, in the bipartisan Senate extenders bill, we included a provision that would encourage employers to hire the long-term unemployed--but even that modest change to the Work Opportunity Tax Credit was not included in the House bill. This is part of a troubling pattern created by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other body--if it helps a small set of businesses or special interests, well the deficit does not seem to matter to them. But if a proposal or initiative is aimed at helping low and middle-income Americans get a foothold in the economy, then the standard is much higher and constantly changing. The 1-year tax extenders bill does have some good provisions, like the extension of credits that help families afford college, make it easier for homeowners and lenders to keep families in their homes, or promote the production of renewable energy like wind. But the bill also has tax breaks for race horses, rum, NASCAR and is skewed towards corporations. All equaling a total of $42 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts. Indeed, we also considered an appropriations bill, which included a snuck-in provision that allows pension cuts on the backs of middle- income employees and retirees in multiemployer pension plans. We should not have considered such far-reaching pension reform without thoughtful, strenuous, and open debate. So the insertion of a pension deal, negotiated behind closed doors, that hurts middle-income employees and retirees at the waning hours of a lame duck Congress is untenable and further cause for Americans to think that their government does not have their back or care about their economic security. They will see Congress giving tax deals for race horses and NASCAR, while their pensions are cut. That's not how this body should govern. Now as we enter a new Congress, we will have to confront the impending sequester that we will face head on again in fiscal year 2016, which will seriously frustrate our ability to provide for the national defense and general welfare. Those sequestration cuts, brought on by the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to reach a deficit reduction agreement that included raising revenue, total $109 billion per year and will impact non-defense and defense spending equally. So again it is striking that many of my colleagues on the other side will have no problem voting for $42 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts--or even as was reported last month, a $450 billion unpaid-for permanent extension of these tax breaks--but when it comes to helping American workers or confronting and undoing the sequester cuts to our domestic programs my colleagues on the other side apply a tougher standard that is tilted against everyday Americans. I have made the tough choices in the 1990s to balance the budget and I have supported over $3.3 trillion in deficit reduction since 2010, over two-thirds of that coming from spending reductions. The deficit is on its fastest decline since World War II and has been cut by more than half since 2009. But the economy has not been growing fast enough and many Americans have seen stagnating wages and have the sense that the economy is stacked against them. So I will work with my colleagues, as I have consistently tried to do, to urge them to join with Democrats to spur broad-based growth for every American and ensure the economy and government works for them--not just for large corporations or special interests.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to explain my opposition to the Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations bill. For months, I worked hard alongside Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, Ranking Member Richard Shelby, and our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to craft a bipartisan agreement, which fit within stringent spending limits, to fund the government and strengthen our economy. Regrettably, the last minute addition of an unrelated bill on multiemployer pension plans tilted the balance away from a bill that reflects a tough bipartisan compromise to a bill that, hastily and without thorough review, makes fundamental changes to numerous private retirement plans. Moreover, another provision of the bill seeks to undo a portion of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that would force large banks to separate the riskiest derivatives trades away from subsidiaries that benefit from federal deposit insurance. Because of the inclusion of these provisions, I am unable to vote for the omnibus. It is a shame, because there is otherwise much good here. This compromise bill includes federal funds, which I advocated for, to boost economic and community development and environmental restoration projects in Rhode Island, as well as key education, manufacturing, workforce training, health care, nutrition, energy efficiency, transportation, and defense initiatives. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski for her boundless energy and ceaseless efforts in putting a bill together with these kinds of investments. As chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. I particularly commend Senator Lisa Murkowski for being an outstanding partner, as well as her clerk, Leif Fonnesbeck, and her subcommittee staff, Brent Wiles, and Emy Lesofski. I also thank the majority staff: Rachael Taylor, Virginia James, Ryan Hunt, and Rita Culp for their work and guidance during my tenure as chairman. I especially wish to recognize Virginia James, who is retiring this January after a distinguished 27-year Senate career. Ginny has served as a trusted adviser on tribal health, science, and arts and cultural issues to both Democrats and Republicans, stretching back to her days serving as an aide to former Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark O. Hatfield. There are many Federal agencies--from the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Indian Health Service--that owe Ginny a debt of gratitude for her work, as does the Senate. She will be missed for both her skill and her humor. Because of the bipartisan efforts of the staff and members of our Subcommittee, the Interior Appropriations bill included in this omnibus legislation has $2.356 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which is $581 million above the fiscal year 2015 budget request. This funding will help states and localities make important infrastructure investments, create jobs here in the U.S., and improve environmental quality. While I am disappointed that the House insisted on the inclusion of a few controversial policy riders, I'm pleased that we were able to eliminate many of the most damaging legislative provisions that those on the other side of the aisle were demanding. These provisions would have impacted the ability of agencies under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction to do their jobs to protect the public and the environment, including their ability to address climate change. I am dismayed, however, that the House refused to accept the Senate's language that would have allowed for a more rational way to account and pay for emergency wildfire suppression. Every member of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee had cosponsored nearly identical legislation and the House Committee report expressed support for this change. Yet the House refused to adopt it in this agreement. I believe my colleagues in the West may regret not taking the opportunity when they had the chance. I am also disappointed that my colleagues in the House could not agree, at long last, that it is time for oil and gas companies to pay a share of the costs of inspecting their on-shore drilling operations. There are other aspects of the omnibus that are troubling. As the long time champion of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), along with Senator Susan Collins, I regret seeing the program cut by $34 million. Although significantly higher than the President's request, the reduction comes after years of cuts or stagnant appropriations. Meanwhile, the number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance continues to exceed available funds and those receiving assistance have seen their grants decrease. I hope we can do better in the future. While the bill includes important investments in surface transportation and aviation systems, I think we should be doing more, given the benefits to our economy. I am especially disappointed that the TIGER grant program, which has helped advance a number of critical transportation projects in Rhode Island, has been cut by $100 million from a year ago. I am also troubled by language that would set aside the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Hours of Service regulation in order to have further study of the rule, which has been in effect for nearly 1\1/2\ years. While I welcome additional studies on driver safety, I don't think it is appropriate to simply set aside a rule that has been the subject of more than a decade of work and legal review. What concerns me most is that it could force truck drivers, who have one of the most grueling jobs in the country, to work longer hours, potentially increasing fatigue and putting more people at risk on our roadways. The bill also hobbles the Department of Homeland Security, providing only enough funding to keep it running until February 27 of next year. This is the response by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to the actions the President has taken with respect to immigration. Due to this intransigence, some initiatives to secure the border cannot be funded nor can measures to address the humanitarian crisis of children crossing our Southwest border or security weaknesses at the White House. Even if these faults could be overlooked because of the many positive provisions in the bill, it is, for me, irreparably damaged by two controversial riders that have nothing to do with funding the government. The bill would repeal section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Section 716 prevents bank subsidiaries that are covered by federal deposit insurance or that take advantage of Federal Reserve lending programs from engaging in the riskiest derivatives trades. In essence, the riskiest derivatives trades would be pushed out from these subsidiaries in an effort to reduce systemic risk and provide greater assurances that Wall Street gambles would not be subsidized by taxpayers. Whether you are in favor of preserving or repealing section 716, everyone should understand by now that the last thing Congress should be doing is passing incredibly complex and consequential derivatives legislation with little deliberation as part of an omnibus appropriations bill. Serious concerns have been raised about repealing Section 716. Some have pointed out that the riskiest derivatives are so volatile that it will be impossible to charge the proper deposit insurance premium to account for the additional risk that the most unpredictable swaps will bring to FDIC insured banking subsidiaries. In other words, the potential losses could far exceed the amounts that have been reserved for contingencies. This should be concerning to all of my colleagues, especially in light of the 2008 financial crisis. It is clear that big Wall Street banks have more than had their say. I merely ask that taxpayers be given an equal opportunity to have their say before they are asked yet again, perhaps years from now, to bail out Wall Street for their excesses. The deep irony is that when my colleagues and I transparently fight for foreclosure prevention for Americans who were harmed by the recklessness of big banks and financial institutions, we are told that it was our constituents who were reckless and that we shouldn't be encouraging moral hazard. By repealing a section that seeks to establish a prohibition against federal government bailouts of swaps entities, some of my colleagues are revealing their view that our largest banks should be held to a significantly lesser standard than distressed American homeowners. They seem to believe that when it comes to the potentially reckless choices of banks, they can continue to wreak havoc in our financial markets--and if their bets fail spectacularly, taxpayers will be there to clean up their mess. This shouldn't be the case. If Members want to debate and vote on this issue in the open, I welcome the opportunity, but to avoid the debate by tucking this provision in a 1,600 page funding bill is a disservice to the seriousness of the issue. I am disheartened that despite what past experience has shown us, we are rushing towards what could be another grave mistake. While much attention has been paid to the repeal of section 716 and other controversial pieces of this legislation, I am even more troubled by the last-minute addition of a bill that would make major changes to the multiemployer pension system. The multiemployer pension program, guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), is in financial distress. Just 1 month ago, the PBGC's annual report raised a number of concerns about the increasing deficits of the multiemployer pension program. Alarmingly, the report predicted a high likelihood of many plans failing over the next decade, which would jeopardize the PBGC's ability to ensure retirees even a minimum guarantee on their pensions. We must take action to ensure that middle-income employees and retirees do not have the rug cut out from under them and lose retirement benefits. We should have a thoughtful, open debate about how we ensure that middle-income employees and retirees receive the pension benefits they have earned so they are able to enjoy a secure retirement. We need a solution that honors these retirees' lifelong work. Regrettably, this legislation--for the first time--opens the door to cutting pension benefits for current retirees. It would renege on the commitments made to middle-income families across the country. Hamstrung by budget constraints over the last few years, we have not done as much as I would have liked to protect programs that provide much needed support to hard-working families. My efforts to extend unemployment insurance, which benefits a broad cross-section of Americans, have been rebuffed by House Republicans time after time this year. And now even hard earned pension benefits are not safe. The financial stability of multiemployer plans is a serious challenge that Congress will have to confront. However, we must consider a range of options before we move to dismantle the longstanding protections afforded to employees and their families by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). One of the most important aspects of this law stipulates that benefits for troubled multiemployer pension plans must be paid out first with remaining assets. The legislation we are considering flies in the face of that commitment by allowing benefit cuts to be the first option for restoring solvency to these plans. Any solution is going to require tough compromises from everyone, but all stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate in crafting a solution instead of having it developed in secret and rammed through as part of a must-pass spending bill. This is the sort of action that infuriates the people we represent. But more important than process, this bill will have an effect on people's lives for years to come and gives further cause for Americans to think that their government doesn't have their back or care about their economic security. We shouldn't approach it so frivolously. We need to make sure the policy is right. Given the outstanding efforts of Chairwoman Mikulski and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee it is difficult for me to say this, but because of the reasons I have explained, I voted no on this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues Chairman Levin of the Committee on Armed Services and Chairman Johnson of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Mr. REED. I join with my colleagues to speak about the inclusion of the HAVEN Act in the National Defense Authorization Act we are considering today. The HAVEN Act, which I sponsored along with Senator Johanns, authorizes a pilot program to help make repairs or modifications that are necessary for disabled or low-income veterans to stay in their homes. The HAVEN Act lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to which it has been referred. However, working in close coordination with the chairman of the banking committee, we were able to include this measure in the NDAA bill, in recognition of its potential to assist veterans of our armed services who are in need; isn't that correct, Chairman Johnson?

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I commend the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee--especially the chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan--on reaching an agreement with the House to complete this important legislation. It is also appropriate that this legislation be named in honor of both Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Buck McKeon, the chairmen of their respective committees who this year are retiring after extraordinary service and dedication to the Nation and particularly to the men and women of the armed services. It is another reason why this bill is particularly special--because it represents the culmination of the work of these two extraordinary gentlemen. For over 50 consecutive years this Senate has passed a defense authorization bill. I hope we will be able to send the bill before us to the President for his signature. We owe it to our servicemembers to pass a law that will support them and enable the DOD to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively. This year, once again we have had to make very difficult decisions, especially because of the economic circumstances we face as a nation, the resources, and the threats which are challenging at this moment in our history. But this bill will allow the Department of Defense to combat these current threats, plan for future threats, and provide for the welfare of our brave servicemembers and their families. While it is disappointing that we are not able to bring this bill to the floor for amendments in regular order because time really is running out, this is a very good bill which is based on the principle of compromise between many parties. It is critical at this moment that we pass it for the men and women in uniform for the United States. I wish to point out a few highlights of the bill. First, it authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for our men and women in uniform. It includes numerous provisions that build on the reforms we passed last year to further strengthen and improve sexual assault prevention and response programs. It is unacceptable and it is completely antithetical to the ethic of the military that anyone in uniform would be a predator. To be a soldier, to be a marine, to be a sailor, to be an airmen--it is about your subordinates, your comrades, helping them and sacrificing for them, not using them. So we can do more, and we must do more, but I am pleased to see that we have taken important steps and we are following through on these steps. The legislation in general improves the ability of the Armed Forces to counter emerging and nontraditional threats, particularly cyber warfare. This is a new dimension of warfare. It is one we are coping with, but I don't think anyone should feel we have the technology, the techniques, the operations, and the insights to feel fully competent. This legislation will help us move in that direction. The legislation also authorizes the full request of $4.1 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to sustain the Afghan National Security Forces as the U.S. and coalition forces shift our mission to training, advising, and assisting these forces, letting them take the lead in combat operations. It is very essential. It also authorizes several train-and-equip programs to assist foreign militaries conducting counterterrorism and counternarcotics operations. Of particular note are programs and resources that will go to Iraq and Syria, where we face serious challenges, where we have to provide the kind of support that is indicated in this legislation. This year I once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee alongside Senator John McCain, the ranking member. Our subcommittee focused on the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, and strategic mobility forces. We put particular emphasis on supporting Marine and Navy forces engaged in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs. Specifically, the bill includes the required funding for two Virginia-class submarines and a moored training ship and approves other major shipbuilding programs, including funding for two DDG-51 destroyers, the aircraft carrier replacement program, and three littoral combat ship vessels, and it permits incremental funding for another amphibious transport dock ship. I am particularly pleased about the funding for the Virginia-class submarines and the DDG-1000 destroyers. So many Rhode Islanders build them, design them, and they are an incredible part of our national security. So we are reinforcing shipbuilding programs that are not only under budget and ahead of schedule but are vitally important to the security of the United States. Along these same lines, I am pleased to note that the bill establishes the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to provide resources and to manage the construction of the Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine program. According to testimony provided to the Armed Services Committee, the Ohio-class replacement is the Navy's highest priority program. We are currently constructing attack submarines. These submarines are designed to go against other submarines, to deliver special operations troops, and to conduct fire missions from the sea. The Ohio class will replace our ballistic missile submarines, which are part of our deterrence forces. These submarines have nuclear weapons and are part of our triad, our architecture to deter the use of nuclear weapons; we have to replace them. It cannot be done just with Navy resources because it is not just a Navy program, it is a national security program embracing our nuclear deterrence. This fund is a good starting point for that process, and I am very pleased to see it in the legislation. Working together with Senator McCain, particularly following Senator McCain's lead, this bill increases accountability for the taxpayers' dollars spent on several major Navy programs. For example, the bill includes a provision to require the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to submit a report of the current LCS test and evaluation master plan for seaframes and mission modules. The report would provide an assessment of whether completion of the test and evaluation master plan will demonstrate operational effectiveness and operational suitability for both seaframes and each mission module. This is a very important program. We want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure we build in efficiencies where we can, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation will help us do that. The bill also includes language that will continue support of and advance planning for the refueling of the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and preclude the Navy from spending any funds to inactivate this ship. Again, this goes to the congressional mandate of having a specified number of aircraft carrier battle groups, and without refueling the Washington, we will not meet that legislative mandate. So we hope we will go forward this year and provide the requisite funding to complete the refueling, but at least we are moving in the right direction. I think that is important. I particularly want to voice my thanks to Senator McCain and other members of the Seapower Subcommittee for their diligence, for their leadership, for their assistance in not only giving what our Navy and Marines need, but also making sure that the taxpayers are protected as best we can. And, frankly, we have to do more with respect to efficiencies, economies, and being wise in our allocation of resources. Before I conclude with my remarks regarding the traditional defense programs, I want to touch on two other aspects of the legislation, one in particular with respect to the Defense act. I am pleased that it includes the HAVEN Act. This is bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Senator Johanns to help more veterans with critical repairs and modifications for their homes so they are safer and more accessible. This program is directed at our disabled and low income veterans. They find themselves out of the service, they have benefits, but they have needs to fix their homes and this program will help them do that. It establishes a competitive pilot program allowing nonprofit organizations throughout the country to apply for grants administrated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help make key improvements to the houses of veterans with disabilities, or low-income veterans. It is fitting we take this step to give back to those who have made a personal sacrifice for our Nation, and I am particularly delighted I was able to work with Senator Johanns. As I noted in my remarks yesterday, he is retiring, but his decency, integrity, intelligence, and commitment to his constituents and also to the men and women of the Armed Forces will be missed here. I am also glad that, on a topic not usually found in the defense authorization bill, we reached a bipartisan agreement on a package of public land bills, including two longstanding priorities for my State. For years, I have supported the preservation and renewed development of the Blackstone River Valley and have led the effort to designate parts of that area as a national park, which the bill before us will finally establish. In 1793, Samuel Slater began the American industrial revolution in Rhode Island when he built his historic mill on the Blackstone River-- really the first industrial-scale operation in the United States--and from that, much has ensued. Today, the mills and villages throughout what is now known as the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Rhode Island and Massachusetts stand as witness to this important era of our history. Much credit has to go to Senator John H. Chafee, who picked up the ball from those who preceded him. In fact, I was told last weekend that this attempt to get recognition goes back as far as a letter to Lady Bird Johnson in the 1960s, asking if she could help get land in the Blackstone Valley preserved. So it has been a long and winding road, and John Chafee was a key person in that process. Creating a national historic park within the existing corridor would preserve the industrial, natural, and cultural heritage of the Blackstone Valley for future generations. It will improve the use and enjoyment of the natural resources, including outdoor education for young people; it will assist local communities while providing economic development opportunities; and it will increase the protection of the most important and nationally significant cultural and natural resource of the Blackstone River Valley. I can recall last year inviting Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell to Rhode Island, and we kayaked along the Blackstone River. When I was young, in the 1950s and 1960s, the idea of going into the Blackstone River, which was then frankly an industrial waste zone, would have been ridiculous. Today, we not only use the Blackstone River for recreation but, with this national park designation, we will be able to do so much more. The public lands package also includes legislation to authorize the National Park Service to look at another river system in Rhode Island and adjacent Connecticut--specifically rivers within the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed--for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers are, again, so important to Rhode Island. One of the things you discover as you go around Rhode Island, particularly after a storm when you can see the true power of these rivers, is that development during the industrial revolution was centered around rivers because water was a source of energy. As a result, many of our communities are clustered around the rivers and have great historic, cultural, recreational, and environmental value. So let me thank not only my colleagues here but in the House, Congressmen David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, for their great effort; also the Members of the Massachusetts delegation, because the Blackstone runs into Massachusetts; and I particularly want to thank Sheldon Whitehouse, a stalwart when it comes to all these issues-- anything to do with the environment, particularly Rhode Island's environment. His leadership and his support were absolutely critical in getting this measure today included in this bill. I would also like to thank the countless number of stakeholders in Rhode Island and Massachusetts who have tirelessly advocated for the preservation of the Blackstone River Valley all these years. We have a good national defense authorization bill before the Senate, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I look forward to being able to witness, even remotely, the signing of the Levin-McKeon national defense authorization. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to salute my colleagues who are departing the Senate at the end of this year with the conclusion of the 113th Congress: Mark Begich of Alaska, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Carl Levin of Michigan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Mark Udall of Colorado, and John Walsh of Montana. They have all worked hard, ceaselessly giving their energy and considerable time and service to their constituents, to their home States and to our country. I want to thank them for their service and for their kindness to me over many, many years in so many cases. In particular, I want to say a few words about these colleagues. Mark Begich Mark Begich and I worked together to address the challenges facing the fishing industry, which is vital to both of our States. He has continually fought to address the unique challenges facing Alaskans, particularly with respect to access to VA health care. I salute him and wish him the best. Saxby Chambliss I have served with Saxby Chambliss on the Armed Services Committee and joined him in his efforts to support the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center. Saxby has been a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform. He has also been a leader on homeland security and intelligence matters. I wish him well. Tom Coburn Tom Coburn has always been passionate on the issues he cares about. We have engaged in vigorous debate, demonstrating, I hope, that principled disagreement can lead ultimately to principled progress. My thoughts are with him, particularly as he battles health issues, his cancer. I hope and wish him success and much happiness as he moves forward. Kay Hagan I have served with Kay Hagan on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and on the Armed Services Committee. We have worked together on a number of initiatives, including efforts to keep student loan interest rates low. We traveled together to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in 2010. She has been a tremendous advocate, especially for our military families and for small businesses. Tom Harkin Tom Harkin has been a great friend, a longtime advocate for students, for workers, for individuals with disabilities. As Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, he has worked to end the logjam and pass reauthorizations of our childcare programs and the workforce investment system, and he recently worked with me to pass a bipartisan bill I helped author to ensure consumers have access to the safest, most effective sunscreens available. He has been a steadfast advocate for increasing our investment in medical research at the NIH. An extraordinary Senator, we have so much to thank him for on behalf of every American. His legacy is going to be so profound. It is hard to pick one. But his efforts, along with Arlen Specter's, to double NIH funding was a landmark in terms of not only successful investment in programs that matter to Americans and the world but bipartisan efforts to lead the country forward. Mike Johanns I have been proud to work with Mike Johanns, an extraordinary Senator and an extraordinary gentleman, on a number of issues. We were particularly happy--both of us--when the HAVEN Act was incorporated into the pending version of the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation will allow disabled and low-income veterans the ability to finance improvements to their homes so they are safer and more accessible. We also worked together on healthy housing efforts and to reduce lead hazards. This is consistent with so many things he has done, particularly with respect to veterans. Again, I wish him the best as he goes forward. Tim Johnson Tim Johnson and I served in the House of Representatives together. We came to the Senate together in 1997. As chairman of the banking committee, he has been an extraordinary leader. He has dedicated himself particularly to community banks and to rural housing, which is consistent with the interests of his constituents in South Dakota. He has worked to build bipartisan compromise on issues like TRIA and FHA reform, among so many other matters. As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies he has been a tireless advocate for our military personnel. I thank him. Mary Landrieu Mary Landrieu and I also came to the Senate together in 1997. We served together on the Appropriations Committee, where she has been an extraordinary advocate for Louisiana, particularly after Hurricane Katrina. In fact, her efforts have been so profoundly influential in her home State, she is one that we all look to as a model for what it is to be an advocate for your constituents. She has done it so well. Mark Pryor Mark Pryor and I have worked together on the Appropriations Committee. We have worked together on a number of initiatives. I want to thank him particularly for his role in trying to help states like Rhode Island be included in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. I thank Mark for that. I offer him my fondest wishes. Jay Rockefeller Today, we are recognizing the work of Jay Rockefeller as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, along with Senator Feinstein. But he has been such a stalwart in so many different areas: as chairman of the commerce committee, someone who has championed the Children's Health Insurance Program, someone who has been in the lead with respect to advocacy for the E-Rate, which helps bring broadband connectivity to all of our libraries and schools, to EPSCoR. I can go on and on for a remarkable career by a remarkable individual, a real gentleman, someone whom I am proud to call a friend and am deeply indebted to his friendship. Mark Udall Mark Udall and I served together on the Armed Services Committee. I am grateful to have traveled with him also to Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2011. Again, he is committed to our troops, committed to our national security, committed to his home State. He has been an advocate for clean energy, for natural resources, for things that will be a legacy for generations to come in Colorado and throughout the United States. John Walsh John Walsh is a friend that I met and served with over the last several years. I want to salute him, not only as a Senator but as a combat veteran. He has had the greatest privilege that I believe any American has--the privilege to lead American soldiers. He did it well. I thank him for that. Carl Levin But let me say, especially, a few words about my dear, dear friend Carl Levin. For 18 years, Carl Levin has either been chairman or ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. The U.S. military, the most powerful and professional force in the world, has in countless ways been shaped because Carl Levin repeatedly helped form a new common ground to move us forward as a Nation for the benefit of our men and women in uniform and for the benefit of us all. Carl and I have traveled many times together--Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Colombia. We were there to visit with commanders and local leaders, but especially to see our troops and to thank them. In the faces of those troops I saw the trust and respect they felt--some to their own surprise--when they met the chairman--the powerful chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was there. He had traveled across the globe to listen to them, to work for them, and to thank them. It was profoundly moving to me to see this--inspiring indeed. As the chairman of one of the other major committees, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he has pursued the powerful on behalf of the powerless, on behalf of the people. He has not only uncovered abuse, but he has sent a powerful message to an increasingly discouraged America that there is someone who will fight for them, who understands that everyone deserves a fair chance at a better future. Carl Levin has been a friend, a role model. I will miss working with him. Along with all of my other colleagues who are leaving us at the conclusion of the 113th Congress, let me thank them for their service, their dedication to improving the lives of Americans, and on a very personal level for their friendship. I wish them all well. SSCI Study of the CIA'S Detention and Interrogation Program Let me conclude on a slightly different topic; that is, to commend Senator Rockefeller again and Senator Feinstein for their extraordinary leadership today in bringing forward to the American public the Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's interrogation program. But I particularly want to commend and thank Senator McCain. For many years, Senator McCain has spoken out, and many times alone, against the despicable and heinous actions that have been illustrated today. He has led our efforts. No one has led them more vigorously and more intensely and more successfully than John McCain--to prohibit the use of torture and abusive methods by the United States of America, to remind us that our highest ideals require us to do something else--something better-- and also to remind us that what is at stake--very much at stake--are the lives and the health of our soldiers. We cannot expect others to follow the law if we do not. We cannot expect our forces to be treated according to the conventions and laws that govern civilized society if we depart from them. That is a powerful message. It is no surprise coming from someone whose personal experience, whose personal courage lends incredible credibility, incredible support to these efforts. To these three colleagues, I extend my thanks. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. In 2010, I worked to include similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but this provision was ultimately not included in the final version of this law. At the time, I noted 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.'' As the response to the financial crisis showed, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other eleven 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 not only a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, but also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is an important 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. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 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. In other words, this means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving significant advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest. Also, 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 capacity 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 an exhaustive list of the New York Fed's unique responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the extremely 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 month, 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.'' On top of this, a report aired in September 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 the New York Fed would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster. All of this is disturbing, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability in order to prevent another problem from snowballing into a crisis because of the New York Fed's continued unwillingness 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 a vital 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. In addition, 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 and when 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, and the AFL- CIO for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. In 2010, I worked to include similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but this provision was ultimately not included in the final version of this law. At the time, I noted 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.'' As the response to the financial crisis showed, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other eleven 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 not only a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, but also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is an important 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. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 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. In other words, this means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving significant advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest. Also, 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 capacity 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 an exhaustive list of the New York Fed's unique responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the extremely 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 month, 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.'' On top of this, a report aired in September 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 the New York Fed would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster. All of this is disturbing, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability in order to prevent another problem from snowballing into a crisis because of the New York Fed's continued unwillingness 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 a vital 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. In addition, 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 and when 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, and the AFL- CIO for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding soldier who has, for the last three and one-half years, served as the Army Chief of Staff's primary advisor on matters related to the needs and welfare of all enlisted soldiers and their families. In January, Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler will retire after 33 years of distinguished service to the Army and the Nation. Throughout his career, he has been an exceptional leader and has personified the values of duty, integrity, and selfless service in all of the missions to which he has contributed. SMA Chandler was born in Whittier, CA and enlisted in the Army in September 1981. He attended one station unit training at Fort Knox, KY and graduated as a 19E armor crewman. SMA Chandler has served in every tank crewman position and has had multiple tours as a troop, squadron, and regimental master gunner. He also served as the 19th Commandant of the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, the first enlisted commandant of that academy in its history. I know that SMA Chandler is looking forward to spending more time with his family, including his twelve grandchildren, and I wish he and his wife Jeanne the very best. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler and his family for their many years of commitment, sacrifices, and service to our Nation.