Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin and Whitehouse in introducing the Layoff Prevention Extension Act of 2014. This bill would extend the financing and grant provisions for the work sharing initiative I authored and worked to include as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Since becoming law, work sharing has helped save over 110,000 jobs, including 1,200 jobs in my State of Rhode Island, according to the Department of Labor. It has saved States $225 million by reimbursing them for work sharing benefits they paid out to workers--benefits that helped keep people on the job as employees and employers elected to reduce hours across the board instead of laying workers off. Before my bill became law only a handful of States had work sharing programs. By tilting the incentives away from layoffs and toward work sharing a majority of states now have laws on their books. However, the 100 percent Federal financing of these work sharing benefits will expire in the summer of 2015 and the $100 million in implementation grants by the end of this year. My bill would extend both of these deadlines by one year so States with existing work sharing programs and those that are looking to enact a program can qualify for Federal support. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill to keep American workers on the job and encourage more States to enact work sharing programs that enjoy broad support in States that have adopted them and economists on both sides of the spectrum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin and Whitehouse in introducing the Layoff Prevention Extension Act of 2014. This bill would extend the financing and grant provisions for the work sharing initiative I authored and worked to include as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Since becoming law, work sharing has helped save over 110,000 jobs, including 1,200 jobs in my State of Rhode Island, according to the Department of Labor. It has saved States $225 million by reimbursing them for work sharing benefits they paid out to workers--benefits that helped keep people on the job as employees and employers elected to reduce hours across the board instead of laying workers off. Before my bill became law only a handful of States had work sharing programs. By tilting the incentives away from layoffs and toward work sharing a majority of states now have laws on their books. However, the 100 percent Federal financing of these work sharing benefits will expire in the summer of 2015 and the $100 million in implementation grants by the end of this year. My bill would extend both of these deadlines by one year so States with existing work sharing programs and those that are looking to enact a program can qualify for Federal support. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill to keep American workers on the job and encourage more States to enact work sharing programs that enjoy broad support in States that have adopted them and economists on both sides of the spectrum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that extends the time period the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, would have to seek civil monetary penalties for securities law violations. This legislation is necessary in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gabelli v. SEC in which the Court held that the 5 year clock to take action aginst wrongdoing starts when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In effect, Gabelli has made the SEC's job of protecting investors even tougher by shortening the amount of time that the SEC has to investigate and pursue securities law violations. Financial fraud has evolved significantly over the years and now involves multiple parties, complex financial products, and elaborate transactions that are executed in a variety of securities markets, both domestic and foreign. As a result, many of the critical facts necessary to initiate an action may go undetected for years. Securities law violators may simply run out the clock, now with greater ease in the aftermath of Gabelli. Couple this with the fact that while we have given the SEC even greater responsibilities, Congress, despite my ongoing efforts to urge otherwise, has not provided the agency with all the resources necessary to carry out its duties. SEC Chair White recently testified before the Banking Committee that ``if the SEC does not receive sufficient additional resources, the agency will be unable to fully build out its technology and hire the industry experts and other staff needed to oversee and police our areas of responsibility, especially in light of the expanding size and complexity of our overall regulatory space.'' To give just one example of the impact of this resource shortfall, Chair White also testified that ``in 2004, the SEC had 19 examiners per trillion dollars in investment adviser assets under management. Today, we have only 8.'' This legislation would address these challenges by giving the SEC the breathing room it needs to better police our markets and protect investors. Specifically, this bill extends the time period the SEC has to seek civil monetary penalties from five years to ten years, thereby strengthening the integrity of our markets, better protecting public investors, and empowering the SEC to investigate and pursue more securities law violators, particularly those most sophisticated at evading detection. In so doing, the bill would align the SEC's statute of limitations with the limitations period applicable to complex civil financial fraud actions initiated pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, FIRREA. For over 2 decades, the Department of Justice has benefited from FIRREA, which allows the DOJ to seek civil penalties within a 10-year time period against persons who have committed fraud against financial institutions. The SEC, which pursues similarly complex financial fraud cases, should have the same time necessary to bring wrongdoers that violate the securities laws to justice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that extends the time period the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, would have to seek civil monetary penalties for securities law violations. This legislation is necessary in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gabelli v. SEC in which the Court held that the 5 year clock to take action aginst wrongdoing starts when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In effect, Gabelli has made the SEC's job of protecting investors even tougher by shortening the amount of time that the SEC has to investigate and pursue securities law violations. Financial fraud has evolved significantly over the years and now involves multiple parties, complex financial products, and elaborate transactions that are executed in a variety of securities markets, both domestic and foreign. As a result, many of the critical facts necessary to initiate an action may go undetected for years. Securities law violators may simply run out the clock, now with greater ease in the aftermath of Gabelli. Couple this with the fact that while we have given the SEC even greater responsibilities, Congress, despite my ongoing efforts to urge otherwise, has not provided the agency with all the resources necessary to carry out its duties. SEC Chair White recently testified before the Banking Committee that ``if the SEC does not receive sufficient additional resources, the agency will be unable to fully build out its technology and hire the industry experts and other staff needed to oversee and police our areas of responsibility, especially in light of the expanding size and complexity of our overall regulatory space.'' To give just one example of the impact of this resource shortfall, Chair White also testified that ``in 2004, the SEC had 19 examiners per trillion dollars in investment adviser assets under management. Today, we have only 8.'' This legislation would address these challenges by giving the SEC the breathing room it needs to better police our markets and protect investors. Specifically, this bill extends the time period the SEC has to seek civil monetary penalties from five years to ten years, thereby strengthening the integrity of our markets, better protecting public investors, and empowering the SEC to investigate and pursue more securities law violators, particularly those most sophisticated at evading detection. In so doing, the bill would align the SEC's statute of limitations with the limitations period applicable to complex civil financial fraud actions initiated pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, FIRREA. For over 2 decades, the Department of Justice has benefited from FIRREA, which allows the DOJ to seek civil penalties within a 10-year time period against persons who have committed fraud against financial institutions. The SEC, which pursues similarly complex financial fraud cases, should have the same time necessary to bring wrongdoers that violate the securities laws to justice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues to urge the Senate to take up and pass the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act led by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren. This is about fairness, it is about values, and it is about what is best for our students and our shared economic future. Earlier this month Senator Whitehouse and I held a roundtable with Rhode Islanders about student loan debt. Rhode Island ranks in the top five for the amount of debt students incur to earn an undergraduate degree. We heard from a teacher who works a second job to help make his loan payments and a parent who worries how she will be able to help her son pay for college while she is still making loan payments. We heard from Rhode Island realtors about the impact student loan debt is having on the housing market. This is an issue that strikes home for all of us. Even our Nation's seniors are impacted. GAO recently reported that from 2002 through 2013, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were offset to pay student loan debt increased fivefold. Think about it. These are senior citizens who are paying off student loans. Their actual Social Security benefit checks are being affected by student loan debt. That is something I find disturbing and completely unpredictable. If you would have asked me 2 or 3 or 4 years ago--certainly if you asked me 30 years ago when I was in my thirties or so, I would have said, no, that wouldn't happen. That would have been impossible back then because we had a country that supported students through college. The Pell grant and Stafford loans were such that people had a chance to pay them off rather quickly and then go on to buy a home, establish a family, and then use their resources for their retirement or to help their grandchildren a little bit with their student loans. When it comes to student loans, we are in this incredible situation. Since 2003, student loan debt has quadrupled to an estimated $1.2 trillion, and the interest rate on undergraduate student loans was 3.86 percent for the last year. Yet many borrowers are locked into loans at 6.8 percent or higher with no way to refinance. Just last year the GAO estimated that the Federal Government would earn an estimated $66 billion from student loans originated between 2007 and 2012. Again, in the 1950s and certainly in the 1960s--but particularly after the Pell Grants in the 1970s--we were investing in students. They were our future, not profit centers. We are now generating--over a 5-year period--$66 billion. Student loans are supposed to be an investment to help individuals reach their potential and strengthen communities, not just a revenue generator. Approximately 25 million Americans could benefit from refinancing, including 88,000 in Rhode Island. They could lower their monthly payments if they could just refinance their student loans. One of the ways we have been trying to help is by allowing borrowers with high fixed rates on their student loans to refinance at a lower rate. That is the simple premise behind the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act that I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Warren and many of my colleagues. In June the Senate fell just shy of the number of votes needed to move forward on this legislation. Today, once again, the Republicans will block us from taking up this legislation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their opposition because student loans should help people get ahead, not weigh them down with debt, thereby holding them and our economy back. Looking forward we also need to work together to tackle the drivers of the student loan debt--rapidly rising college costs and a rollback of the State investment in higher education. We need to get back to the idea that educating Americans is fundamentally in our national interest and that we have a shared responsibility--at the Federal, State, local, institutional, and individual levels--for investing in our future. We need to ensure that this generation and future generations have opportunities to develop their talents and pursue their dreams in order to secure a brighter future for them and our country. I urge my colleagues to join us in providing student loan debt relief to millions of Americans. Help us pass the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Help us relieve this burden of debt on so many young, middle-aged, and remarkably so--based on recent studies--some senior citizens.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act. The recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act recognized that the adult education field has evolved from a literacy skills program to a more comprehensive college and career readiness initiative to ensure that adult learners have the foundational skills to fully participate in the community and compete for jobs that provide family sustaining wages. We need to ensure that there is a strong research base to support this vital transition. For 2012, data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies show that an estimated 52 percent of adults ages 16- 65 in the United States lack the literacy skills necessary to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information. These are essential skills for postsecondary education and the workplace. Beyond their value in the labor market, these skills are also correlated with health and civic participation. Clearly, improving adult education is critically important to the health and well-being of our people, our economy, and our democracy. In Rhode Island, it is estimated that nearly 130,000 adults have less than a high school education. Over 45,000 have limited English proficiency. Yet, we are reaching less than 6,000 through the current adult education program. Clearly, we need more resources and innovative, research-based ways to reach more people. The Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act will support the key reforms to adult education in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by ensuring that adult education is included in our national education research priorities. Specifically, the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act will amend the Education Sciences Reform Act to require the Institute for Education Sciences and the National Center for Education Statistics to collect data and carry out research on: successful state and local adult education and literacy activities, the characteristics and academic achievement of adult learners, and access to and opportunity for adult education in communities across the country. It will also ensure that the Institute of Education Sciences draws on the expertise of adult educators when developing policies and priorities. Finally, the legislation would require that at least one research center would focus on adult education. These straightforward amendments to the Education Sciences Reform Act will go a long way to strengthening the research base that will support the improvement of adult education across the country. I was pleased to work with the adult education community, and particularly, the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education in developing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act and to work with me to ensure that its provisions are included in the reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act. The recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act recognized that the adult education field has evolved from a literacy skills program to a more comprehensive college and career readiness initiative to ensure that adult learners have the foundational skills to fully participate in the community and compete for jobs that provide family sustaining wages. We need to ensure that there is a strong research base to support this vital transition. For 2012, data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies show that an estimated 52 percent of adults ages 16- 65 in the United States lack the literacy skills necessary to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information. These are essential skills for postsecondary education and the workplace. Beyond their value in the labor market, these skills are also correlated with health and civic participation. Clearly, improving adult education is critically important to the health and well-being of our people, our economy, and our democracy. In Rhode Island, it is estimated that nearly 130,000 adults have less than a high school education. Over 45,000 have limited English proficiency. Yet, we are reaching less than 6,000 through the current adult education program. Clearly, we need more resources and innovative, research-based ways to reach more people. The Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act will support the key reforms to adult education in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by ensuring that adult education is included in our national education research priorities. Specifically, the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act will amend the Education Sciences Reform Act to require the Institute for Education Sciences and the National Center for Education Statistics to collect data and carry out research on: successful state and local adult education and literacy activities, the characteristics and academic achievement of adult learners, and access to and opportunity for adult education in communities across the country. It will also ensure that the Institute of Education Sciences draws on the expertise of adult educators when developing policies and priorities. Finally, the legislation would require that at least one research center would focus on adult education. These straightforward amendments to the Education Sciences Reform Act will go a long way to strengthening the research base that will support the improvement of adult education across the country. I was pleased to work with the adult education community, and particularly, the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education in developing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Strengthening Research in Adult Education Act and to work with me to ensure that its provisions are included in the reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, today I honor the distinguished career of Pamela K. Haze, who retired from the U.S. Department of the Interior this past August after 34 years of Federal service. Ms. Haze served as the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance and Acquisition for the past 5 years. Her most recent position was the culmination of many years of experience working in various capacities within the Department's budget office. Her career prior to that time was spent in other bureaus of the Department, where Pam worked as a biologist and hydrologist, and served in other management roles with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. As the primary liaison between the Department and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, Pam has been an indispensable and trusted adviser. I have had the good fortune as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to both work and travel with Pam, most notably on a trip to Alaska that included our subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. I have witnessed firsthand Pam's dedication to the Department's mission. She has worked tirelessly with me and my staff during the annual appropriations process and we have steadily relied on Pam's vast store of knowledge and keen insights to help resolve challenges that have arisen over the years. The appropriations process simply would not be the same without her and the dedication, wisdom, and the good humor she brought to her work. I join with many in wishing her all the best as she begins a well- deserved retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have for many years, to urge my colleagues to fix our Nation's broken campaign finance system. I do so after much deliberation and consideration of a series of Supreme Court decisions and the explosion of undisclosed and potentially unlimited campaign spending that has Americans of all political backgrounds concerned. Indeed, I remember when this was an issue that brought Republicans and Democrats together, and I was proud to support Senator McCain's efforts at campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Citizens United and McCutcheon, have given more than the mere appearance that money--and corporate money at that--has a louder voice than everyday Americans. Indeed, Justice Breyer wrote in his McCutcheon dissent that ``taken together with Citizens United . . . [McCutcheon] eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.'' In my view, these misguided decisions by a slim majority of the Court have allowed spending on political campaigns to get out of control. There is a pervasive and corrosive view of politics felt by too many in this country that their ability to express their concerns and wishes to their elected officials is being crowded out by narrow interests and campaign funds. Rhode Islanders don't want their voices drowned out by unlimited money with little or no transparency or no disclosure on where that money comes from. In order to have a broad-based democratic system, we need reasonable campaign finance laws which ensure that those with large financial resources cannot drown out the voice of everyday Americans. That is what this constitutional amendment we are seeking to debate is all about. The system is broken, and as much as individual candidates can pledge to provide more disclosure or take other steps to increase transparency, that is not the solution to fixing the problem. We need to give Congress and the States the ability to set reasonable rules for all candidates. The constitutional amendment we are considering today does three straightforward things: First, in order to advance democratic self-governance and political equality, it gives Congress and the States the power to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. Second, it grants Congress and States the power to enforce the amendment and to distinguish between people and corporations or other artificial entities. Third, it ensures that nothing in the amendment could be used to abridge the freedom of the press. This amendment doesn't create any new and specific campaign finance rules; rather, it gives Congress and the States the power to pass legislation and to distinguish between real people and legally created artificial entities, such as corporations. Whatever legislation that would be enacted pursuant to this constitutional amendment would be the result of a serious and lengthy debate in Congress and in the States. I welcome that debate, and I believe most Americans want that debate as well. It would begin a process that is so necessary to rebuild a sense of trust in our government and our electoral system. I urge my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment to fix our broken campaign finance system by giving Congress and the States the power to reasonably regulate political spending, thereby reducing the influence of wealthy special interests. It is these same wealthy special interests that obfuscate the facts of a debate and block efforts that could give our country and our economy a shot in the arm. Indeed, I hope we can also find bipartisan support to give more Americans the ability to have a fair shot at success. For example, we need to make college more affordable and ease the burden of student debt on millions of Americans, invest in our infrastructure, raise the minimum wage, expand job training, close the pay gap for women, boost jobs through manufacturing--and that is just for starters. We need to pass these kinds of bills and send them to the House and urge them to act. The Senate was able to come together and pass a bill to provide relief to the long-term unemployed earlier this year, but with 9.6 million Americans still out of a job and looking for work--3 million of whom have been doing so for more than 6 months--House Republicans have refused to follow suit. It is imperative that we keep working to strengthen our economy, create jobs, and provide a fair shot for everyone. I believe fixing the campaign finance system through this constitutional amendment will provide a foundation so we can have reasonable debate that is responsive to the interests of the American people and not responsive to the interests of a narrow class of Americans. I urge my colleagues to take up this bill, pass it, and get on with the business of giving everyone a fair chance at success. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I come to the floor today to once again press for action on my bipartisan legislation to restore emergency unemployment benefits. Over 3.5 million Americans have lost benefits since the program expired last December. The need to help these individuals, their families, and the economy remains compelling to all of us. In April, Senator Heller and I were able to draft a bipartisan bill, and with the help of many of our colleagues, the Senate acted to restore these benefits. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership has refused to take up the Senate-passed bill or consider their own proposal. While the President has occasionally talked a good game about the need to extend this aid to job seekers, it has never been made a ``must have'' by the administration. Indeed, it is hard to understand why an extension of these benefits was not included in the President's supplemental appropriations request. So as we consider this supplemental appropriations bill this week, which includes critically important emergency funding measures, it is somewhat disheartening that extending unemployment insurance, another emergency need, has once again been ignored. In the past 6 months, the national unemployment rate has dropped from 6.7 to 6.1 percent. The long-term unemployment rate has dropped just below 2 percent. It is great to see these positive strides in our economy. But I strongly disagree with those who would argue that these signs of improvement suggest that emergency benefits are no longer needed. Let me underscore a few reasons why emergency unemployment benefits are still necessary. First, while the long-term unemployment rate has dropped from 2.3 percent in January to just under 2 percent in June, the current level is still significantly higher than at any other point when emergency benefits were allowed to expire. In June 2008, under President George W. Bush, when the long-term unemployment rate was just 1 percent, a supermajority of Members in both Chambers voted to create emergency unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed. That was at 1 percent. Now we are about twice that. Today our long-term unemployment rate of about 2 percent means over 3 million Americans are out of work through no fault of their own, and have been searching for work for more than 6 months. These individuals are struggling. With each passing month, their financial situation becomes increasingly dire. They should not be held to a different standard than those who were searching for work in 2008. Second, the long-term unemployed are still struggling mightily to find work. According to a recent report by economists at the Federal Reserve, when you look at the likelihood that someone will find a job in a given month, the rate for the long-term unemployed is roughly the same as it was at the height of the great recession several years ago. In fact, someone who is long-term unemployed is almost twice as likely to stop looking for work altogether and fall out of the labor force as they are to get a job. These difficulties in finding work are persistent across educational levels and age groups, although they are much more pronounced among the African-American and Latino communities. So we are seeing people who are trying very hard to find work but they are facing the same obstacles they were facing at the height of the great recession. Again, I think this underscores the need to help these people. Some have argued that the improvement in the labor market is driven by Congress's failure to extend emergency benefits. According to this argument, taking away unemployment insurance benefits pushes people to step up their job search. I find this argument very difficult to accept when you face people back in my home State of Rhode Island who have been looking desperately, in a situation where there are usually three, four, five, six applicants, in some cases, for every job. They are looking and looking and looking. In Rhode Island, our unemployment rate is tied for the highest in the Nation. It is not the position we want to be in. To suggest that these people are not desperately searching for work really sort of, I think, demeans them unnecessarily. We all know, because we go home. There are people who have been looking. They are skilled. They are talented. They have worked for 20 years. They want to work. Getting the $300 a week, perhaps, in benefits is nothing like the salary they commanded. It will not, in the long term, pay for their mortgage, pay for their children's education, pay for the necessities of life. They know that. They are in a desperate situation. This assistance helps a little bit. Not only the contact we have with our constituents but recent research also demonstrates that this argument is flawed, that ``just cut off the benefits and everybody goes right back to work.'' We can use North Carolina to test the impact of cutting benefits, because that State took steps in July 2013 to terminate unemployment benefits for anyone who has been out of work for 20 weeks or more. If opponents of extending unemployment insurance are correct, North Carolina's policy change should have led to significantly sharp declines in its unemployment rate. A recent article in the New York Times by Justin Wolfers, an economist with the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution, explores evidence from North Carolina to assess this claim. According to his research, when North Carolina is compared with other Southern States that did not cut their programs, North Carolina's economic growth ``looks quite similar to its peers, and certainly not better.'' The levels of job growth in North Carolina are similar to neighboring States such as South Carolina that did not change their programs. Dr. Wolfers concludes that, ``There's simply no evidence . . . that cutting benefits cuts unemployment.'' Others have argued that cutting UI at the State level will save money and help the economy of the States. In response, eight States decreased the number of weeks an individual could receive State-level unemployment insurance benefits. However, a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute suggests these States did not save significant amounts of money or boost employment. This is further evidence that cutting UI benefits is simply not a good idea. The refusal by House Republicans to renew unemployment insurance benefits does not just hurt individuals and families for each week they do not get this modest support. The effects are more far reaching, with research suggesting that the long-term unemployed will be hurt for decades to come. According to research by a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, ``workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks experience a much larger negative income effect and have lower earnings even after 10 or 15 years than those workers that experienced shorter-duration unemployment spells.'' Many are forced to rack up debt on their credit cards just to meet basic level needs. A recent Gallup poll also shows that nearly 20 percent of individuals who were unemployed for 12 months have been treated for depression. This is a serious blow not just to your economic well-being but to your identity, to your sense of worth, to your sense of being able to help your family and provide for your family. These effects are long term and very serious This rate of depression is twice as high as for those who have been unemployed for just a few weeks. So there is, apparently, a correlation. The impact is far-reaching for individuals, their families, and the economy as a whole. It undercuts, again, the notion that there is no cost or that there is some benefit to cutting these benefits. There is a long-term cost. One of the aspects too, is in order to qualify for these benefits, you have to be actively searching for work. Without these benefits, the incentive to look for work is, in some respects, diminished. Indeed, other phenomena take place: the lack of resources, the increasing desperation and depression. Again, it is encouraging to see that there are signs of economic improvement. It is encouraging to see that some of the long-term unemployed have found jobs. We dipped below that 2-percent level. But that does not mean we should turn our backs on those who are still looking. That does not mean we should treat them differently than we did people in 2008 in the same position in a difficult economy looking for work. Those of us who continue to fight for the long-term employed--I must also say that Senator Heller in this effort has been a stalwart. We have heard lots of excuses and a lot of discussion, in my view, of flawed arguments about how we should abandon the program, and, more pointedly, abandon these people. I don't think we should. What is certain in terms of analysis is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that our failing to renew this program last December will cost over the course of this year 200,000 jobs. And this emergency aid helps families make ends meet until they find work. One of the great ironies here is that in refusing to extend these benefits, we basically shut down 200,000 jobs in this country. It is almost absurd. It is a catch-22: We are shutting the doors on the unemployed so we can get them to work, but yet the analysts will tell us that if we had extended benefits, we would have gained 200,000 jobs. Why? Because these payments go right back into the economy. Someone who is unemployed is going to take that modest check, about $300, $350, and pay the phone bill so they can call about work, they are going to get the car repaired so they can get to the job interview, and they are going to do the things they have to do to help their children get through the day. They are not going to save it or buy French impressionist paintings. They are going to go right into the local economy and spend the money. For many reasons this is why I think we have to do it. That is why Senator Heller and I have filed an amendment to this emergency appropriations bill, on a bipartisan basis. The amendment will be the same as we have proposed previously, except for offsets, because for the second time offsets we have identified to pay for an extension of benefits have been used for another measure. I guess we must take some satisfaction that we have developed offsets for restoring emergency unemployment insurance and then another program grabs them and it gets passed here. But I would rather have the extension of benefits too. So we are moving forward. I hope we can. I am committed to fighting for these American workers so they won't be left behind now and in the years to come. Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to join us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, in an effort to decrease the rate of drug overdose deaths, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Markey, Whitehouse, and Leahy in introducing the Overdose Prevention Act. Representative Donna Edwards has introduced a similar bill in the House. Throughout the country, the death rate from drug overdoses has been rapidly climbing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, and more than 110 Americans died each day from drug overdoses in 2011. More than half of these deaths are attributable to opioids, like prescription pain relievers or heroin. Indeed, this tragic epidemic has hit particularly hard in my home State of Rhode Island, where already in 2014, more than 100 individuals have died from apparent and confirmed drug overdoses. Americans aged 25 to 64 are now more likely to die as a result of a drug overdose than from injuries sustained in motor vehicle traffic crashes. While overdoses from illegal drugs persist as a major public health problem, fatal overdoses from prescribed opioid pain medications such as oxycodone account for more than 40 percent of all overdose deaths. It is clear that we must do more to stop these often preventable deaths. Fortunately, the drug naloxone, which has no side effects and no potential for abuse, is widely recognized as an important tool to help prevent drug overdose deaths. Naloxone can rapidly reverse an overdose from heroin and opioid medications if provided in a timely manner. Overdose prevention programs, including those that utilize naloxone, have been credited with saving more than 10,000 lives since 1996, according to the CDC. Opioid abuse and overdose is not an abstract threat found in far-off corners. It is a national public health crisis and it's taking place right here at home in our communities and our neighborhoods. Rhode Island is taking steps to combat this scourge and is leading the way in adopting innovative solutions. Through a ``collaborative practice agreement,'' some Rhode Island pharmacies are dispensing naloxone, along with training about its proper use, to anyone who walks in and requests the treatment, no prescription necessary. In addition, the Rhode Island State Police now carry naloxone in every cruiser. However, there's more work to be done at the federal level. The Overdose Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, would complement Rhode Island's efforts and take important steps towards addressing this issue and increasing access to naloxone in our communities. The legislation aims to establish a comprehensive national response to this epidemic that emphasizes collaboration between State and Federal officials and employs best practices from the medical community, as well as programs and treatments that have been proven effective to combat this startling national trend. This is an emergency and it requires a coordinated and comprehensive response. Specifically, the bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award funding through cooperative agreements to eligible entities--like public health agencies or community-based organizations with expertise in preventing overdose deaths. As a condition of participation, an entity would use the grant to purchase and distribute naloxone, and carry out overdose prevention activities, such as educating and training prescribers, pharmacists, and first responders on how to recognize the signs of an overdose, seek emergency medical help, and administer naloxone and other first aid. As rates of overdose deaths continue to spike, public health agencies, law enforcement, and others are struggling to keep up without accurate and timely information about the epidemic. Therefore, the Overdose Prevention Act would also require HHS to take steps to improve surveillance and research of drug overdose deaths, so that public health agencies, law enforcement, and community organizations have an accurate picture of the problem. It would also establish a coordinated federal plan of action to address this epidemic. The Overdose Prevention Act brings together first responders, medical personnel, addiction treatment specialists, social service providers, and families to help save lives and get at the root of this problem. I am pleased that the Overdose Prevention Act has the support of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Harm Reduction Coalition, and the Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as Representative Edwards and the rest of our colleagues in passing this crucial legislation. Many of these overdose deaths are preventable, and it is time for Congress to act to give communities the help they need to stop this epidemic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, in an effort to decrease the rate of drug overdose deaths, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Markey, Whitehouse, and Leahy in introducing the Overdose Prevention Act. Representative Donna Edwards has introduced a similar bill in the House. Throughout the country, the death rate from drug overdoses has been rapidly climbing. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, and more than 110 Americans died each day from drug overdoses in 2011. More than half of these deaths are attributable to opioids, like prescription pain relievers or heroin. Indeed, this tragic epidemic has hit particularly hard in my home State of Rhode Island, where already in 2014, more than 100 individuals have died from apparent and confirmed drug overdoses. Americans aged 25 to 64 are now more likely to die as a result of a drug overdose than from injuries sustained in motor vehicle traffic crashes. While overdoses from illegal drugs persist as a major public health problem, fatal overdoses from prescribed opioid pain medications such as oxycodone account for more than 40 percent of all overdose deaths. It is clear that we must do more to stop these often preventable deaths. Fortunately, the drug naloxone, which has no side effects and no potential for abuse, is widely recognized as an important tool to help prevent drug overdose deaths. Naloxone can rapidly reverse an overdose from heroin and opioid medications if provided in a timely manner. Overdose prevention programs, including those that utilize naloxone, have been credited with saving more than 10,000 lives since 1996, according to the CDC. Opioid abuse and overdose is not an abstract threat found in far-off corners. It is a national public health crisis and it's taking place right here at home in our communities and our neighborhoods. Rhode Island is taking steps to combat this scourge and is leading the way in adopting innovative solutions. Through a ``collaborative practice agreement,'' some Rhode Island pharmacies are dispensing naloxone, along with training about its proper use, to anyone who walks in and requests the treatment, no prescription necessary. In addition, the Rhode Island State Police now carry naloxone in every cruiser. However, there's more work to be done at the federal level. The Overdose Prevention Act, which I am introducing today, would complement Rhode Island's efforts and take important steps towards addressing this issue and increasing access to naloxone in our communities. The legislation aims to establish a comprehensive national response to this epidemic that emphasizes collaboration between State and Federal officials and employs best practices from the medical community, as well as programs and treatments that have been proven effective to combat this startling national trend. This is an emergency and it requires a coordinated and comprehensive response. Specifically, the bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to award funding through cooperative agreements to eligible entities--like public health agencies or community-based organizations with expertise in preventing overdose deaths. As a condition of participation, an entity would use the grant to purchase and distribute naloxone, and carry out overdose prevention activities, such as educating and training prescribers, pharmacists, and first responders on how to recognize the signs of an overdose, seek emergency medical help, and administer naloxone and other first aid. As rates of overdose deaths continue to spike, public health agencies, law enforcement, and others are struggling to keep up without accurate and timely information about the epidemic. Therefore, the Overdose Prevention Act would also require HHS to take steps to improve surveillance and research of drug overdose deaths, so that public health agencies, law enforcement, and community organizations have an accurate picture of the problem. It would also establish a coordinated federal plan of action to address this epidemic. The Overdose Prevention Act brings together first responders, medical personnel, addiction treatment specialists, social service providers, and families to help save lives and get at the root of this problem. I am pleased that the Overdose Prevention Act has the support of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Harm Reduction Coalition, and the Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as Representative Edwards and the rest of our colleagues in passing this crucial legislation. Many of these overdose deaths are preventable, and it is time for Congress to act to give communities the help they need to stop this epidemic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I request unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. REED. I wish to support the short-term reauthorization of our national surface transportation law. It is urgent that we keep the highway trust fund solvent to avoid a shutdown of work on our highways, bridges, and transit systems. A recent letter from 62 national organizations, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Laborers' International Union, echoed the White House's warning: If we don't shore up the trust fund, we put at risk 100,000 construction projects that support more than 700,000 jobs, including 3,500 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island. We have to save these jobs, but I have to say that the legislation before us is inadequate on two fronts. First, instead of a short-term bill, we should be undertaking a long- term extension of transportation funding to provide certainty to the States and create much-needed jobs. Second, the House version of this bill uses the very offsets that House Republican leaders rejected when they were included as part of my bipartisan legislation to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. House leadership has used every excuse to deny these benefits to people who have been hurting for months, invoking increasingly problematic conditions. I, for one, will not stop working to help people who, despite their best efforts, find themselves without the opportunity to find work. We need this patch--even though it is not the preferred solution--to avoid a virtual shutdown of construction throughout the country and prevent further job losses. But the mere fact that the trust fund is so close to becoming bankrupt has already had an effect. Last month, Moody's downgraded the ratings on the GARVEE bonds for 26 transportation agencies. In Rhode Island our Department of Transportation has about $67 million of projects on hold because of the uncertainty about the trust fund. These are projects that could put people to work in a State that unfortunately is tied for the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. There is more work the State wants to move forward on that would create more needed jobs, but we can only do that with a long-term reauthorization bill. With only a few months of funding under this so-called patch, Rhode Island will be able to start little--if any--new construction. Instead, the trickle of Federal funding will pay back debt from projects that have already been finished and keep ongoing projects from stopping. It will support some design work that could help keep contract designers from going out of business, but it won't get much new construction started. So my State and others across the country are forced to wait in a very costly holding pattern. Only a bill that invests significant resources over multiple years can provide this certainty for States and help get new projects underway. That was the point made by Secretary Foxx and 11 former Secretaries of Transportation in a letter just a few days ago, noting that we are more than a decade removed from the passage of the last long-term transportation reauthorization bill. Another point the Secretaries make is this: While long-term certainty is essential, greater Federal investment is needed to ensure our transportation infrastructure meets the needs of our people. As a nation, our transportation infrastructure system is in desperate need of improvement. The most recent report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gave both our roads and transit systems a grade of D. Our aging infrastructure doesn't get as much attention in the media as other issues until the worst happens, such as the collapse of major bridges in Minnesota in 2007 and Washington State last year. But there are structurally deficient roads and bridges in every State, bridges that millions of Americans drive across for work or travel, that companies use to transport products, and that our schoolbuses drive over with our children. Aging infrastructure is a major challenge for Rhode Island, which has the highest percentage of roads that are in poor condition and the highest percentage of bridges that are deficient or obsolete according to the American Society of Civil Engineers and the U.S. Department of Transportation. In the last 5 years, Rhode Island has had to act to replace two major bridges on the I-95 corridor. Luckily, the State has been able to take action to avert a disaster, but it hasn't been easy. One of these bridges, the Pawtucket River Bridge, was effectively closed to all large trucks for several years until it was replaced. The other, the Providence Viaduct, which is currently being replaced, has required boards to be placed beneath it in order to protect traffic and passersby below from falling concrete. Each year, these kinds of deficiencies cost American families $120 billion in extra fuel and time, according to the White House. Businesses pay $27 billion annually in extra freight costs, which then get passed on to consumers. In Rhode Island, the poor road conditions cost $496 million each year in added vehicle repair and operating expenses, which is over $650 per year for each motorist. To tackle the significant challenges to keep our roads, bridges, and transit in a state of good repair, States such as Rhode Island will need a strong Federal commitment. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to increase our surface transportation funding at all levels of government by $846 billion by 2020 to restore our transportation system to a state of good repair and meet the demands for our growing population and economy. Without more investment, we increase the chance of another infrastructure failure and we create inefficiency in our economy. Federal funding is critical for all our States in meeting that challenge, but it is especially important for States such as Rhode Island that struggle to generate their own funds for infrastructure. Indeed, stagnant Federal support will make it harder for States that are struggling economically to share in our national prosperity, running the risk of increasing economic inequality among States. However, with added investments in infrastructure, we can improve freight, roads, and transit systems, meaning commuters will make it to their destinations more quickly and safely while businesses save on shipping goods. Too many times in the past, the Republican leadership in the House has exploited deadlines like this to engage in brinkmanship, shutting down the Federal Government and bringing the country to the edge of default. In part because we haven't had a manufactured crisis in the last several months, we have seen some good signs in our economy, and so I am encouraged we will not see a shutdown of work on our roads and bridges this summer. But again, averting disaster shouldn't be our goal. We need to press ahead with a multiyear reauthorization bill to create jobs and improve our economy. Unfortunately, when it comes to helping American workers and our economy, Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have stalled progress. Indeed, we have seen Republicans block several measures that would help strengthen our economic recovery. As I discussed earlier, House Republicans refused to act on restoring emergency unemployment insurance, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that a year-long extension would generate 200,000 new jobs. Republicans have also blocked our efforts to raise the minimum wage, let borrowers refinance their student loans, pass a paycheck fairness bill or an energy efficiency bill. We need long-term solutions to all of these issues. In my view, we should make this extension--the one we are considering now--as short as possible to increase the likelihood that we can pass a long-term bill that increases our investment in our transportation system. Regardless of the duration of this short-term bill, we should be working to address the issue before the end of the year. As Secretary Foxx and his predecessors admonished: What America needs is to break this cycle of governing crisis-to-crisis, only to enact a stopgap measure at the last moment. The Secretaries made another important point. They wrote this: Until recently, Congress understood that, as America grows, so must our investments in transportation. And for more than half a century, they voted for that principle--and increased funding--with broad, bipartisan majorities in both houses. We believe they can, and should, do so again. We should follow their advice. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the U.S. Army. LTG Michael T. Flynn will retire in August after more than 33 years of distinguished service to the Army and the Nation. Throughout his career, General Flynn has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions to which he has contributed. A native Rhode Islander, General Flynn graduated from the University of Rhode Island and was commissioned as a second lieutenant through the university's ROTC program. He was assigned to the ``All-American'' 82nd Airborne Division, and since then, has served in a variety of command and staff assignments, leading men and women during times of peace and war. Over the course of almost four decades of service, he has commanded at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels. As an intelligence officer, General Flynn was often deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, serving as the director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command, the Joint Staff, and the International Security Assistance Force-Afghanistan and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. For the past 2 years, General Flynn has served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, focusing on strengthening integration and collaboration with the Combatant Commands and making the agency more flexible and responsive to intelligence requirements. He has overseen DIA's rapid tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence support to U.S. warfighters as they confront a variety of threats--from militancy in North Africa and the crisis in Ukraine, to tracking terrorists and weapons proliferation. In all of his assignments, General Flynn has provided outstanding leadership with integrity and has offered sound advice on numerous issues of importance to the Army and our Nation. I know that he is looking forward to spending more time with his family in Rhode Island, and I wish Mike and his wife Lori the very best. On behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island and a grateful Nation, I thank General Flynn and his family for their many years of commitment, sacrifices, and service to our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 510, submitted earlier today by Senator Whitehouse and me.

Mr. REED. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his eloquent remarks about the jazz festival, which is a great Rhode Island institution. Indeed, it is a great American invention. The Newport Jazz Festival owes its beginnings to the vision and financial backing of Elaine and Louis Lorillard, who in 1954 wanted to do something with jazz in their community in Newport. Through their collaboration with George Wein, a jazz pianist and club owner with a vision, the jazz festival was born. Today the festival has grown to be one of the largest and most well-known jazz festivals in the Nation-- indeed, I would say the world--attracting a whole new generation of artists and music fans. It also helped pave the way for the creation of the Newport Folk Festival--another pillar of the music festival community. George Wein, in producing the Newport Jazz Festival, did not set out to change the world; he set out to make great music. But, as history has shown, great music and great art can change the world. What George Wein did over many summers was produce something more than extraordinary festivals; he produced the soundtrack of freedom for a generation of Americans. Since its founding, the Newport Jazz Festival has seen an eclectic range of performers--emerging and established--many at the peak of their art--all embellishing their credentials through their performances. From Duke Ellington, to Frank Sinatra, to Led Zeppelin, the Newport Jazz Festival has seen them all. Its ongoing mission is to celebrate jazz music and to make the case for its relevance. The 60th anniversary festival stays true to its core mission. It will kick off on August 1, 2014, and is scheduled to feature a variety of talent over 3 days, including Wynton Marsalis playing with the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, Trombone Shorty, and Dr. John. It will also include one musician who played at the inaugural Newport Jazz Festival, Lee Konitz. Newport continues to attract top-notch performers and is still a must-see event for jazz and music aficionados alike. I would also like to recognize the impact the Newport Jazz Festival has had and continues to have in our great State of Rhode Island. Each year, the thousands who flock to Newport to witness the festival also have an opportunity to experience the treasure of a Rhode Island summer. In this way the Newport Jazz Festival has served as a major source of tourism--an important industry for our State--and should be viewed as a model for other communities to follow. I am proud to call the Newport Jazz Festival a home State event. On this milestone anniversary, I wish to congratulate my dear friend George Wein, the festival board, and all those who have worked and those who continue to work to put this outstanding event forward each year. Best wishes on a successful 60th anniversary festival and for continued success in the future. Congratulating the Newport Jazz Festival

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the 60th anniversary of a Rhode Island institution, the Newport Jazz Festival. At this time, I wish to yield to my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his reflections on the Newport Jazz Festival. After he speaks, I will give my statement on this remarkable Rhode Island event. I yield now to my colleague.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman again, and I look forward to swift passage of this legislation here in the Senate, and hopefully in the House as well.

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman. I would like to clarify one point. While TRIA is silent on whether a nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological related terrorist attack or any kind of cyber-related attack are covered, I believe our intent with S. 2244 is that these attacks would continue to fall within the scope of TRIA's covered lines, as they do today, provided that statutory prerequisites are met. Does the chairman agree with this assessment?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues to speak about S. 2244, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2014, TRIA, which I have cosponsored. First, I commend Banking Committee Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Crapo for their leadership on this important issue. Their efforts, along with those of the sponsors and cosponsors of the bill, led to a unanimous committee vote of 22 to 0 to report the legislation favorably to the full Senate. It is heartening to see legislation like this come together on such a strong bipartisan basis. Reauthorizing TRIA is vital and not just from a Banking Committee perspective. I also have the privilege of serving on the Armed Services Committee. It is through this dual lens, and from what we know of the significant terrorist threats our Nation still faces, that compels me to believe that we need to reauthorize TRIA as soon as possible. We must keep markets effectively and efficiently 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. And so, I again thank the chairman for his leadership on this vital issue.