Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today is National LIHEAP Action Day. Advocates from many different States are here to make the case for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This important initiative helps low-income Rhode Island families and millions of vulnerable Americans across the country pay their energy bills. Simply put, access to affordable home energy is a matter of health and safety for many low-income households, children, and seniors. In Rhode Island this year, LIHEAP provided roughly $24 million, which allowed the State to deliver assistance to 27,700 households. However, despite bipartisan efforts that I have led with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to press for robust support for the program, funding reductions in 2011 and 2012, along with sequester cuts, have led to a decrease in the number of households served. As a result, nearly 1.5 million vulnerable households have lost access to this vital lifeline. With one of the harshest winters in decades and the high cost of energy experienced in some regions of the country, including high natural gas and heating oil prices in New England, the importance of the LIHEAP program is even more pronounced. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average cost of home heating this winter will rise to nearly $1,000 on average, a 6 percent increase over last year. These cost increases are happening at a time when households are receiving lower benefits. The average LIHEAP payments have been reduced by more than $100 since 2010, dropping from $520 in fiscal year 2010 to $406 in fiscal year 2013. I urge my colleagues to recognize the need to provide access to affordable home energy for the most vulnerable households in our States and join me in support of LIHEAP. This assistance is an indispensable lifeline, helping to ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other basic necessities such as food and medicine.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson and Representatives Dingell and Whitfield in the introduction of the Sunscreen Innovation Act. According to the American Cancer Society, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. In 2014, over 2 million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer, and 20 percent of Americans will get skin cancer at some point during their lifetime. Melanoma, a dangerous form of skin cancer that often spreads throughout the body if not treated, will be diagnosed in an estimated 76,000 individuals this year, and will take the lives of almost 10,000 Americans. Many skin cancers are preventable with the use of effective sunscreen and by avoiding certain activities, like the excessive use of tanning beds. Throughout my time in Congress, I have been working to ensure consumers have adequate information to prevent skin cancer. For example, I authored the 2007 Tanning Accountability and Notification Act, which has helped spur the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA review of indoor tanning bed labels. Through letters to the FDA and report language in the annual appropriations bill, I continue to press the FDA to implement new tanning bed labeling standards found to be most effective in warning consumers about the harm caused by indoor tanning. In addition, after working with my former colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, since 1997 to compel the FDA to strengthen sunscreen labeling standards, in 2011 the FDA finally began to take action to finalize parts of the sunscreen monograph relating to the testing and labeling of sunscreen lotions. These regulations were over 30 years in the making. Last year, I urged the FDA to complete its review of sunscreen sprays and the use of sun protection factor, SPF, numbers higher than 50 on product labels. One barrier to improved sunscreens has been the rate at which new over-the-counter, OTC sunscreen ingredients have been approved by the FDA. Indeed, the last such ingredient approved by the FDA was in the 1990s, with the eight new ingredients submitted since 2002 still awaiting review. It is critical that the FDA perform its due diligence to guarantee that the sunscreen products are safe and effective, but this review process also needs to occur in a timeline that allows these necessary products to get into the hands of consumers. Many of these ingredients have been used in sunscreen products in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America, in some cases for many years. Unfortunately, delays in the FDA review process have kept these products off of the shelves in the United States for years while awaiting approval. Our bipartisan, bicameral Sunscreen Innovation Act aims to improve the application process for these new OTC ingredients and ensure consumers have access to new and potentially more effective sunscreen products in a timely manner. Americans have waited far too long for the most advanced, effective ways to protect themselves from the sun. I am pleased that this legislation has the support of the PASS Coalition, which is made up of such organizations as the Melanoma Research Alliance, the Prevent Cancer Foundation, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and many others. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as Senator Isakson, Representatives Dingell and Whitfield, and the rest of our colleagues to pass the Sunscreen Innovation Act in order to improve access to new and more effective sunscreen products. Indeed, as we look to the coming warmer months, it is important that we undertake serious efforts that will give consumers greater peace of mind that the sunscreen products they purchase offer the strongest possible protection against the sun's harmful rays.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, the Senate needs to do everything it can to help create jobs, improve our economy, and address the basic needs of the average American. Unfortunately, many efforts to make meaningful progress on these issues have been thwarted in the last 2 months. Specifically, for the last 87 days, emergency assistance for job seekers has been blocked by gridlock. Despite the best efforts of several of my colleagues, including my colleague and friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, today over 2.2 million Americans are being denied vital assistance in what remains a very difficult economy, but I am pleased to say that a group of five Republicans and five Democrats have reached a principled compromise to end this impasse and help get people back on their feet. Indeed, I along with Senators Heller, Merkley, Collins, Booker, Portman, Brown, Murkowski, Durbin, and Kirk have introduced a bill to continue emergency unemployment insurance for 5 months retroactive from December 28. As I have advocated, this bill contains no cuts to the weeks of benefits available or the structure of the tiers of benefits, nor does it include other problematic policy changes. It is, however, fully paid for and includes some positive reforms that better align the unemployment insurance and workforce systems to help get people back to work sooner. It also includes language my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sought--and that was previously passed in the Senate 100 to 0-- which would prohibit millionaires from receiving Federal emergency benefits. I wish to thank Senator Heller for his commitment to this issue, for his steadfastness, and for his recognizing that this should not be a partisan issue. He has been an extremely thoughtful, collaborative, and constructive colleague in trying to bring this issue to the floor. I also wish to particularly thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Kirk because they also have been extremely thoughtful, tireless, and resolute in their efforts to find a pathway forward. They have all brought constructive ideas to the table. We have been able to craft a principled compromise that will provide aid to an estimated 2.7 million Americans, including 12,000 Rhode Islanders. This is a vital lifeline that can mean the difference between making a rent payment, putting enough food on the table, and keeping the heat on as our constituents search for work in an economy where there are still more than two job seekers for every opening and in fact in some places three job seekers for every opening. I have been working since last year to extend these benefits. Every day that passes is another day that hard-working Americans do not have the same type of aid as those who were unemployed and looking for work last year had. I am glad we have reached a principled bipartisan compromise. It deserves to move forward quickly so we can provide much needed relief to our constituents and can strengthen our economy. I understand there have been administrative concerns raised about this bill by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, which Speaker Boehner appears to be using as a reason to not take up this bipartisan compromise. Frankly, administrative challenges should not be a reason to deny aid to working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there hitting the pavement searching for work in a challenging economy. The Secretary of Labor has sent Congress a letter addressing all of the concerns raised by the national group. This letter notes the Secretary of Labor is ``confident that there are workable solutions for all the concerns raised by NASWA. From the Great Recession to the present, the Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to enact twelve different expansions or extensions to the EUC program. A number of extensions included changes to the program that were as or more complex than those included in the current bill. The Department of Labor has consistently worked with states to implement these extensions in an effective, collaborative and prompt fashion, and will do so again.'' Indeed, the States have implemented benefits retroactively several weeks after the program has expired previously. I would like to add that my colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this bill, out of an abundance of caution and a desire to allay these administrative concerns, have included clarifying language to ensure that administrative funding constraints related to the prohibition on millionaires receiving emergency unemployment insurance could not be read in an overly broad fashion, so that it will make this bill administratively easier to implement. I look forward to debating this bill later this week. I am hopeful that with this strong bipartisan showing, we can convince our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol that this is the right thing to do for the economy and for working Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own and who are searching for work. Again, I am delighted to join Senator Heller in this effort and our other Republican cosponsors. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful, constructive, and collaborative. They have served not only their constituents but this Senate and this country with great and deeply appreciated effort.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, and would like to commend the bipartisan work of Senators Mikulski and Burr and Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in bringing this important legislation to the floor. There have been several previous attempts to reauthorize this critical program in the past, including when I was a member of this committee. It is my hope we can come together and finally carry this important legislation across the finish line to the benefit of children and families across the country. Access to affordable, high quality, safe and secure childcare is essential for working families. Yet, such care is very hard to find. According to a 2013 Child Care Aware survey, the cost of full-time, center-based care for two children is the highest single household expense in the Northeast, Midwest and South. This high cost often puts fully licensed programs out of reach for low-incomes families. The child care and development block grant has not been reauthorized since 1996. At that time, the primary focus of the program was to enable people to move from welfare to work. Today, knowing the critical importance of early brain development and the role early education plays in school readiness and successful outcomes for young people, we must work to achieve the dual goals of CCDBG to ensure affordable and quality childcare options for children and families. And we cannot achieve these goals without addressing the issue of payment rates, the level at which states reimburse childcare providers who care for low- income children who receive a child care subsidy. That is why during previous attempts to reauthorize the child care and development block grant during the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, I introduced the Child Care Quality Incentive Act to provide incentives to States to set equitable payment rates so that low-income families would have access to affordable and high quality care for their children. I am pleased that the bill before us today includes some of the key provisions of my legislation, such as requiring States to conduct a statistically valid and reliable survey of market rates for childcare, report the results of the survey publicly, and set the rates based on the survey results, taking into consideration the cost of providing higher quality care. Raising the payment rates for childcare is an integral component to improving quality. The other essential element to improving quality and affordability is our investment in childcare and early education programs. According the Congressional Research Service, seven percent fewer children were served in fiscal year 2012 than had been served in fiscal year 2011. According to Kids Count Rhode Island, since peaking in 2003, the number of childcare subsidies in the State has decreased by 45 percent. The $154 million increase for childcare that we included in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act was a step in the right direction. Clearly, we need to do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation to expand our support for working families, and ensure that all children have the quality of education and care to reach their full potential.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in calling for action to address climate change. This is a global challenge that has far-reaching consequences for our economy, our public health, and our national security. I begin by thanking my colleague Senator Schatz, who is with us; Senator Whitehouse, my colleague from Rhode Island; Senator Boxer; and members of the Senate Climate Action Task Force for their leadership and for bringing so many of our colleagues to the floor last evening and through the early hours of this morning to call attention to the critical issue of climate change. This issue is daunting and difficult. One reason it is so daunting and difficult is that it is a slow-moving crisis. We are often faulted for not responding to critical issues before us, but we are certainly faulted for not responding to those that have evolved over many months and many years--the nature of our political process, the nature of our attention span, and the fact that other issues crowd out these longer term issues. But what we have seen as we look back is a clear path of evidence suggesting that our climate is changing. Our climate is changing in ways that are going to disadvantage us--disadvantage us in terms of our economic productivity, our national security, and it is going to disadvantage us in terms of things that we take for granted. Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, Senator Whitehouse, and I grew up along the New England coast. I am a little older than my colleagues, but in the 1950s and 1960s those coasts had wide beaches and homes built along those beaches for middle-class workers. All of that has literally eroded over the last several years--particularly these superstorms that have come up our coast. Now we are seeing that places we saw as our summer ideal, beautiful places, have literally been lost. Homes have been upended by storms. Areas that were frequently places for summer relaxation are now gone because of rising seas and because of changing climates around oceans, bays, and our estuaries. This is only one example. I could go on and on. This evidence is so clear-cut, so condemning, and so convincing that we have to take steps now. Across the globe, these issues are also increasingly important. It is not simply a localized issue. This is an issue which is impacting every person across every part of the globe. We see temperatures increasing, seasons shifting, sea levels rising, extreme water events becoming more frequent, and heat-related illnesses and diseases on the rise. As I said before, these changes are being felt everywhere--they are being felt in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and all across this country. California has been enduring a crippling drought, and in other parts of the world we have seen unusually large rains. All of these weather patterns suggest that there is a changing dynamic that has consequences. We have to deal with these consequences. There are some who would argue that we should take no action to mitigate these impacts because there is a cost of addressing these issues, a cost to our economy. In fact, there have been proposals introduced in Congress that would greatly restrict the U.S. EPA, for example. Their position is: See no evil. Hear no evil. Do nothing. That approach is only going to make this problem worse. That approach is going to make the cost for us but also, more profoundly, for our children and the next generation of Americans, much more severe. We have to act wisely now. We have to move forward wisely now. I think we have to do so with the notion--which I think is quite obvious and true--that sound environmental protection is not in contradiction to economic growth. In fact, they work together hand in hand. We have to have the long-term combination of sound environmental policy to encourage sustainable, economic growth. A healthy environment is essential for our economy and for our quality of life. Indeed, the strength of the economy depends on the health and resilience of our people, our critical infrastructure, and our natural resources. The cost of inaction, as I have suggested, is substantial, and it will be paid. We talked today about rising seas, and as we look at most of our major cities, many of them are clustered on the ocean. They started there. They were ports. They were points of entry into the United States. They are the economic engines that drove this country from its founding until today. But as our seas rise, critical infrastructure is jeopardized. There have been discussions in New York City, for example, of building walls in certain low-lying areas of Manhattan. That whole process is likely a multimillion-dollar process, and it might well have to be taken--certainly, if we do nothing--because the rise of these tides seems inevitable. But if we act now, it might be mitigated or lessened or, through different techniques, avoided. But it takes action now. That is why my colleagues have tried to galvanize us into this session to underscore the need to act and the need to act promptly. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, economic losses from weather-related events, including floods, droughts, and storms, have been significant and have been increasing. That is sort of the dynamic we are seeing. Not only are we seeing an increase in these weather incidents, but we are seeing them in a larger scale and it seems to be an accelerating process--more and larger weather incidents creating more damage. We in Rhode Island and our sister States, Connecticut and Massachusetts, saw significant damage from Sandy, but we did not receive the brunt of the storm. However, that was a factor that could have altered, indeed, hours before the storm hit. We were concerned it would come straight, pouring down on Rhode Island with catastrophic effects. Fortunately we missed the worst of it, but that was not the fortune of New Jersey and New York. They suffered billions of dollars in damage. They are still trying to restore communities, and they are still trying to restore services. We have had some effects, too, that we are dealing with. But what we have seen is these storms coming repeatedly. My sort of vague history of hurricanes in Rhode Island--it was the 1938 hurricane that came roaring through. I was not there, but that was a devastating event. Then there was the 1954 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, and that was a devastating event. But there was, it seemed to me at least--and this is anecdotal more than analytical--a decade or more, 15 years, almost 20 years between storms. In the interim the storms were the old- fashioned nor'easters. They would come and go, and there would be a little damage but nothing significant. But that pattern and intensity of storms seem to have increased in their repetitiveness and their nearness of time. What we are seeing is a barrage, really, of economic events--huge environmental events--that have huge economic costs. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since 1980 the United States has sustained 151 weather- related disasters where overall damages reached or exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these events tops $1 trillion. In 2012 Superstorm Sandy, the prolonged Midwest drought, and the nine other weather- related disasters led to damages in excess of $110 billion, making 2012 the second costliest year for disasters. Let's stop and think. These disasters--that is $110 billion or so for Superstorm Sandy and some of the other incidents that took place in 2012--if they were avoided or mitigated, could allow public resources to be used for other things. That is one of the facts we have to face. This is not free to us. If this prolonged drought in the West produces more forest fires--and there is a rough correlation between those two--we will pay for that. We will have to fight those fires. That is a huge amount of Federal spending before $1 goes to an Indian health care center or $1 goes to a Federal program to support higher education. Before $1 goes anywhere, we have to respond to those fire crises. That is only one example that is coming from the conditions established by a drought. When we look at the coastal storms that are bearing down on us, we have to fix the infrastructure, we have to fix the shattered roads that line the coastlines, and we have to fix the sewer systems that have been shattered by these storms. It is not avoidable. So these costs keep accumulating. Then there is another cost; that is, the opportunity cost of not being able to invest more in schools, invest more in other infrastructure, invest more in lowering the cost of energy--all of these things. We have to recognize that. As I said before, my State has been impacted, along with every other State, by these different weather phenomenon. The Sandy storm--mercifully we missed the brunt, but we still sustained significant damages. Our coastline is increasingly vulnerable. That is the other factor. These storms weaken our coastlines and our barrier beaches. So when the next storm comes, the damage is even more severe, and when the next storm comes, it is worse. This cumulative effect is accelerating so rapidly that these damages are making us more and more vulnerable to storms. In fact, it goes back to the frequency and the intensity of these storms. There used to be--at least anecdotally--a period of time where literally the coast could recover. There was a decade or so where, instead of severe storms every summer or fall, we had a period of accumulation of beach sand, of the ocean depositing sand, not ripping it away in a storm. That doesn't seem to be happening. We have to recognize that. We also have to recognize that we have a Federal perspective, but the States are also spending a huge amount of money on responding to the effects of the storm, and that also diverts their efforts from education, from health care, and from all of the things States have to do. This is not only a national issue. This is not only a regional issue. This is, as everyone has said on this floor, a global issue. Because of the global characteristics, it touches on interests of national security, which my colleague the Presiding Officer from Connecticut spoke about. Rising waters--and they are rising for a very simple reason: As the water temperature increases, water expands. That is just simple thermodynamics. It is science. Simple thermodynamics is all I remember from West Point. As the water expands, sea levels rise, and that is going to keep happening. If we mention the temperatures in the waters around New England over the past 20 or 30 years, they have gone up. And the water levels have also gone up. There is no sinister force out there. There is no whirling machine that is driving the water. There is no high-level combination of winds coming together. That might happen; that is the nature of a storm. But water keeps rising because molecules keep getting farther and farther apart as they heat up. That water rise is significant to us in Rhode Island, but it is catastrophic to other places. Bangladesh is a country that is essentially on the water, and many parts of it are close to being underwater. If the sea waters rise there you have a situation of a relatively poor country that has had problems with its neighbors, and just to seek shelter people will be forced to move in and to put pressure on the boundaries. It could cause tremendous problems. That is just one example. In Pakistan, we have invested a huge amount of money to work with the government of Pakistan to provide assistance as they battle the Taliban, to provide assistance as we move supplies through there to our forces in Afghanistan. The floods, the seasonal droughts, the chaotic weather they have seen there weakens an already weak government. This is repeated time and time again around the globe. So this is, again, not just an issue about whether we are going to preserve our beaches, preserve our coasts or save money here in the United States to devote to more meaningful reasons. It could pose a serious national security threat as people are forced together with political issues already and now are under the threat of environmental catastrophe. They are changing borders, migrating, moving in conflict, and creating huge problems, undermining the weak governments that already exist in these areas of the world and providing further pressure on these governments. The result is chaotic situations which are the breeding ground for much of the terror and much of the carnage we see across the globe. This is related and we have to recognize that. There is another part of this, too, that is often neglected. It is a challenge, yes, and a serious challenge, but also it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to create jobs to deal with this evolving problem. Frankly, in the American spirit, one of our greatest characteristics is when we have seen a challenge, we also saw opportunity. Other nations just saw a challenge. They didn't roll up their sleeves and deal with some of the issues as we did, as our predecessors did, as our parents did. Now it is our turn. Will we roll up our sleeves, look at this as a real serious challenge, and not ignore it but deal with it? If we do that, we can create good jobs. We can create jobs that will reward people and contribute to an improved environment. Weatherization, for example, supports thousands of highly skilled workers and additional jobs in related businesses, materials suppliers, vendors, manufacturers, et cetera. This is a very straightforward way to deal with the issue of climate change. When we make homes more weather tight and better insulated, when we don't waste energy, when we don't have to use as much, when we cut down demand and don't have to generate as much and put as much pollution into the atmosphere, and we do these things on a widespread basis, we put a lot of people to work. These are the types of jobs that many people have the skills to do and that are rewarding. They can do them, and we save ourselves energy. We save the pollution, we save the warming that comes from just spewing excess emissions into the environment, and we put people to work. This is a low-cost, effective way to deal with employment and with energy. We have to do more of these things. It is not, as they say, rocket science. This is no fabulous, new, high-tech application that we need to develop. This is giving people and communities the resources and the support to go out there and to put better insulation in buildings, to try to use more alternate energy sources, to put better windows in and better doors to hold the heat. This is just straightforward but very powerful. It can help curb energy consumption. Particularly for low-income people, it can reduce the cost of energy. One of the problems, again and I see my New England colleagues around that we face in New England is our energy costs are much higher than the rest of the country. One is because we have a poor distribution system; and two, we have a system also where we are paying for some of the pollution in the Midwest that comes out of stacks and is taken at high altitudes and then it descends into New England and the Northeast. So we have to compensate not only for our pollution but also for other areas of the country. So all these factors come together. My point is we can do a lot collectively across the country. It is not just a challenge, it is a huge opportunity, and that means getting our public policies here in Washington right. That means investing in better energy, investing in better distribution systems, investing in improving those systems that exist. One of our problems in terms of the natural gas distribution in New England is not only that it is old and inefficient in terms of delivering gas, but it leaks methane, which is not a very good environmental component to release. So we have these challenges before us, and we want to go ahead and deal with these challenges. We see around the globe increases in precipitation, increases in sea level rise, storm surges becoming greater, and all of these are putting to the test every system we have. Our road systems--I haven't seen the roads as poor in the Northeast in my life. Highways--I-95, there are potholes everywhere. Why? We have had so many storms over the last 2 years, so much plowing, and so little dollars to do the repairs. The roads now leave you bouncing along on the highway like you are not in the United States of America but in some second or Third World country. That is a consequence-- indirect, but a consequence--of the weather and our inability to marshal the resources to deal with the weather. Not just clearing the snow, but then going in and repaving the roads. We see that everywhere. But we have to do more. This is a threat to our fisheries. It is a threat to our drinking water. It is a threat to our quality of life. Again, growing up in Rhode Island, we took for granted in the 1950s and 1960s that short ride to a beautiful beach--a big, broad, beautiful beach--swimming in the water and not worrying about the beach being closed because of environmental conditions, toxic conditions in the water. Some of that has changed, and we have to go back and reestablish that quality, that lifestyle. It is not just all about dollars and cents. It is also about the quality of our lives. As I said before, and let me conclude, this is not just an issue of domestic policy, localized issues. This touches upon our national security. Ironically, we debate budgets of billions and billions of dollars about platforms, about what kinds of systems we will have in the air, on the sea, under the sea; what types and sizes of units we will have on the ground and what their training is like. But ironically, one of the things that is likely to trigger the engagement of our forces is this growing environmental crisis throughout the world. Someone, I think it was one of the defense ministers in Nigeria, said one of the greatest problems the east faces, with the rise of these bands of radicalized young people, is the fact that because of desiccation of parts of his country, traditional farming, traditional aspects of economic growth and jobs and livelihood have been taken away, and so young people can get a gun and that is their new job. I think we have to be very serious about the national security consequences. So as we are moving forward, I hope we will recognize that these environmental challenges are also national security challenges. There is one thing that was very revealing to me, and that was a few years ago when the Navy announced the Arctic Ocean would be able to be commercially transited during certain parts of the year. Again, growing up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, if someone had told me the Arctic Ocean was going to be a commercial highway for ships, I would have said that is preposterous. It is frozen. It is always frozen. It will always be frozen. Well, that is not the case. Last year, Arctic sea ice reached an all-time low, and as climate change accelerates, the melting of sea ice will invariably make that a source of navigation. It will create new opportunities, such as shipping routes, but also new challenges. Who will patrol those seas? Will we have to create not only a Pacific fleet but an Arctic fleet? That costs money. Who owns the rights? Who has access to that area? So we are looking at huge problems that even 10 years ago we thought were fanciful. That underscores the final point I want to make. We see this climate process, this climate change coming, and it doesn't seem to be affecting us minute by minute, so there is this tendency to be rather cavalier about it. Beyond the people who out-and-out deny it, which I think ignores the facts of science, even people who do tend to recognize it think, yes, well, we have time. But what we are seeing is not just the intensity of these incidents; we are seeing them accelerating, and the consequences of accelerating with such rapidity is that what we thought might be a huge problem 2 or 3 years from now might occur in half that time. So we have to act. I want to conclude by thanking my colleagues, Senator Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz because they have called us to come forward and to recognize this issue--to seize the challenge but also to seize the opportunity. In doing so, they have done remarkable work for the Senate and for this country. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, there is no doubt that when a sexual assault occurs in a military unit, when a servicemember is a victim or a perpetrator of sexual assault, then we all fail. It is not just the military chain of command; it is all of us. That is why the efforts of Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand have been so critical and important. They have galvanized this debate. They have forced action where action needs to be taken. Now the question is, What is the pathway forward that will achieve what we all want--the reduction of sexual assault in the military forces? I have expressed before concerns with the approach Senator Gillibrand has taken because I firmly believe, based on experience in the Active military, leadership has to be involved at every stage--recruitment, training, evaluation, promotion, and retention. When we take the commanders out of any of these steps, we diminish their effectiveness in every one of these steps. Removing the commander from these responsibilities, in my view, will weaken his or her effectiveness, and the test of that effectiveness is not in the courtroom, it is on the battlefield, and the consequences of such weakness could be significant to the forces of the United States. So we have to continue to maintain a system that recognizes the need for constant attention to this issue, constant leadership and command focus, on this issue. We also have to recognize that the proposal we are putting forward today--and I think this is critical--is not just about sexual assault; it covers a wide range of offenses, offenses like larceny of personal equipment in the barracks. It covers a whole host of crimes that are not directly related to sexual assault. As a result of this bifurcated system that would be created, some traditional charges, such as AWOL, have been reserved for the commander, but a significant amount of charges has been referred to this new process. This bifurcated system will cause practical problems that will undercut the effectiveness of units to perform their mission and to do what is necessary to protect their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The service JAGs--very experienced legal officers who have served in the uniformed military justice system in the United States--have pointed out several defects. First, the proposal fails to address the complexity of these cases. Some cases will be referred to the special prosecutor, while others will remain with the commander, creating a multiplicity of venues, multiplicity of investigations, and perhaps conflicting decisions; all of which not only impose significant costs, but I think interferes with the sense the soldiers should have that they know what the system is. Second, this proposal takes away one of the most significant aspects of the military justice system; that is, nonjudicial punishment. For example, as I illustrated before in my remarks, you could have a barracks thief who steals an iPhone and an iPad that accumulates to a certain amount to trigger a charge that has to be referred to a special prosecutor. If that special prosecutor declines to prosecute, then it goes back to the company commander. But the company or the battalion commander, given the level of jurisdiction, cannot now impose nonjudicial punishment for the simple fact that the accused has to accept the punishment, but if there is no way he or she can be court- martialed, that punishment will not be accepted. For offenses that are properly tried or adjudicated through the Article 15 process, those offenses will literally not only go unpunished, but the whole climate of command could be significantly changed. Third, there is a constitutional issue, which is that under this proposal, you have the creation of a single office--and again I will refer to it generically as special prosecutors--with the authority to appoint counsel--defense counsel--and members of courts-martial panels, and that raises constitutional problems. Let me conclude by saying that we have had a vigorous debate, and it has been an important debate, but we have had the opportunity since that debate to get the results of the Role of the Commander Subcommittee from the Response Systems Panel. These are objective members--in fact, many of them have for years been in the forefront of urging sensible reforms in the military, of being the vanguard in protecting victims in many different forms. They have concluded that the commander should remain within the loop, should remain as Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Fischer proposed, with corrections and with improvements that I think are very appropriate. I would urge that we support strongly the provisions Senators Ayotte, McCaskill, and Fischer have proposed. They strengthen the system. But I must say that to remove the commander as proposed would in the long run be detrimental not only to the effectiveness of the military forces but detrimental to our common goal, which is to reduce sexual assault in the military of the United States. If we do not, if we allow it to continue--it is a corrosive force that will undermine our forces more than anything else. Committed to that goal, I think we should support Senator McCaskill, and I am pleased to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, today I want to recognize an extraordinary university, deeply rooted in the history of Rhode Island, Brown University. Brown is celebrating its 250th anniversary. Brown University's founding in 1764 makes it the seventh oldest institution of higher education in the United States, predating even the American Revolution. The university originally began as a small school located in Warren, RI, known as the College of Rhode Island. As Brown grew, it moved to College Hill in Providence in 1770, where it has thrived to this day and was renamed a few years later to acknowledge a $5,000 gift from Nicholas Brown, a member of the class of 1786. Since its founding, Brown University has played an important role in Rhode Island and our Nation's history. Indeed, it was the first Ivy League institution to admit students of all religions. Brown remains committed to diversity and access. Over 20 years ago, Brown established the Leadership Alliance, a national academic consortium of leading research universities and minority-serving institutions with the mission to develop underrepresented students into outstanding leaders and role models in academia, business, and the public sector. Brown stands out for its willingness to openly delve into its past while staying focused on the future, and it has made a vital commitment to college access through its need-blind admissions policy, ensuring that no student admitted to Brown will be turned away for financial reasons. Brown established a truly student-driven curriculum--the Brown Curriculum--in 1970 to allow students to personalize their course of study. In an effort to continue its edge in innovation, Brown launched its Plan for Academic Enrichment in 2002 to help transform the fields of research, education, and public leadership. Fiscal year 2013 saw the University conduct more than $170 million in sponsored research, helping the Rhode Island economy and making new discoveries that can improve lives. The commitment of Brown's alumni to public service is also particularly noteworthy and admirable. According to a 2013 article by Washington Monthly, Brown ranks fifth among national universities and first in the Ivy League for the number of alumni working in public service. Some of the Brown alumni currently playing important roles in the public sphere include Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, and World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim. Through this commitment to service, members of the Brown community continue to find ways to improve the quality of life for people across Rhode Island, the Nation, and the world. I am proud of the talented men and women who have contributed to the success of Brown University over these past 250 years. I congratulate Christina Paxson, Brown's 19th president, the students, the Brown Corporation, and the entire Brown community on this significant milestone.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, before I leave the floor, I wish to turn to another key issue that requires urgent action; that is, the renewal of unemployment benefits for millions of people. It has now been 46 days since unemployment insurance expired for many job seekers. Today their ranks have swollen to about 1.8 million Americans, including 20,000 veterans who have lost their emergency unemployment insurance benefits. Getting Americans back to work and accelerating job growth should be Congress's top priority--our No. 1 job. We all understand the answer to this is having a situation where there are not three applicants for each job, but there is a good job for each applicant, and we have more to do. In the meantime we have to address the crisis for these families who have worked hard all of their lives. They only qualify for unemployment insurance if they lost a job through no fault of their own and are looking for work. But in that search, it is difficult. And it is certainly difficult to get by, pay the rent, put gas in the car, keep a cell phone operating, to take a call from a potential employer when we cut off the modest benefits of roughly $350 a week. Doing this has historically been a bipartisan endeavor. We have all recognized in our communities, regardless of where they are located in this country, people who have worked hard, who are struggling and need assistance to make the transition from unemployment back to reemployment. I am particularly troubled today by the way some people are commenting about the unemployed, suggesting they don't have the backbone, the character to work; that this is a great deal for them, getting $300 a week. When, in fact, one of the obvious points, to me, at least, of this crisis of unemployment is it is not just young, entry-level workers; too often, it is middle-aged individuals who have done extremely well in their lives and now, for the first time, are coming into unemployment situations because of technology, because of changes in the workforce. They are good people, and they deserve our support. But, instead, they are being mischaracterized, dismissed, and ignored--perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this attitude. We were only one Republican vote short of breaking a filibuster that would allow us, at least temporarily, to help out these people. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked very conscientiously, consistently, and thoughtfully on this critical matter. If one more of our colleagues can recognize the need to do this, then we can do it, and we should do it. We are, I believe, on the verge of addressing the issue of military COLA reductions. That is something important we have to do, but let me point out, that does not go into effect until December 2015. There is no veteran who has lost his or her COLA yet, but there are 1.8 million Americans, and growing, who have already lost their extended unemployment insurance benefits. So the immediacy of this problem is compelling, and we have to deal with it. We have never turned our back when long-term unemployment was so significant. We have always stood up and said, we will help you. We have also been willing to make changes to the program. In fact, in 2012, I was part of a conference committee that made significant reforms in the unemployment system. One reform was to cut back the weeks from 99 to 73. We provided to States the ability to have innovative programs in terms of putting people in jobs, in terms of making sure a job search was being thoroughly conducted by recipients. These reforms have been made. What we have asked for is a short extension of the program, and I think that is what we should be asking for at this juncture. But as we progress and as we get close to the point where the 3 months has expired, I think we have to think more about what are we going to do in the long run, because we are still going to have millions of people who do not have work. We have, I think--and it has been demonstrated by these folks-- Members on both sides who want to get this done. We need one more vote to procedurally move forward. I hope we can get that vote. With that, I yield back the remainder of our time. I believe, under the prevailing UC, that we will now go into executive session. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for yielding me 2 minutes. We are leaving here with major unfinished business. We have not extended unemployment benefits for 1.8 million Americans. They are getting to be increasingly desperate. They need this assistance as they continue to look for work in a very difficult time. I think it is interesting, if not ironic, that the pay-for mechanism that was instead used to pay for the appropriate adjustment of the military retirees' COLA was the same pay-for mechanism we had proposed to use to extend these benefits for up to several months, almost 1 year. Yet many of my colleagues on the other side rejected that, saying that was inappropriate. We have to come back. We will come back. We have to deal with unemployment insurance. We have to find a way, both sides, to come together and find a way to provide modest assistance for these Americans who are struggling to find work in a market where there are up to three applicants for every job. With that, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, what has made America strong is we have provided opportunities for individuals to develop their talents. Previous generations of Americans have recognized this, and invested in higher education accordingly. During President Lincoln's time, the Federal Government invested in establishing a system of public colleges throughout the Nation. After World War II, we opened the doors of postsecondary education to our returning veterans under the GI bill. As part of the War on Poverty, we enacted the Higher Education Act with the idea that no American should be denied the ability to go to college because their family lacked the ability to pay for college. Senator Pell, my predecessor, with the creation of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant--later named the Pell grant in his honor--made the promise of a college education real for millions of Americans. As part of the student aid programs, we invested in offering low-cost loans to create opportunity, spur innovation, and grow our economy. Our student loan programs were originally seen as an investment, not a profit center or even a cost-neutral proposition. Today, our student aid investment aid has been stood on its head. The Congressional Budget Office estimates we will be generating revenue from student loans through 2024. Student loan debt has become a serious threat to our ladder of opportunity--our pathway to progress for this generation. That is what brings me and my colleagues to the floor today. We must turn the tide because too many students are drowning in debt, and it has threatened to hold back a new generation of young Americans just when they would be forming a household, buying cars or starting a business. As student loan repayment plans stretch out over 20 years or more, this generation will still be paying off student loans when it comes time to send their own children to college and perhaps while also taking care of their parents in their senior years. The bottom line is we know borrowers are struggling. We know the government could play a more constructive role in helping them and enacting reforms to increase fairness and transparency in this process. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently reported that delinquency rates on student loan debt are increasing even as we see decreases in delinquency rates for other types of household debt. The cohort default rates for student loans have been increasing. For borrowers who entered repayment in 2010, 14.7 percent had defaulted by 2013, up from 13.4 percent for those who began repayments in 2009. It is essential borrowers know about their repayment options. That is why Senator Durbin's Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights Act is so important and why I am proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation. But changing the trend of growing debt and rising defaults is more than a student loan servicing issue. We have to provide a real avenue to allow individuals straining under the weight of the estimated $1.2 trillion in student loan debt--many with loans carrying an interest rate of 6.8 percent or higher--an opportunity to refinance those loans at a lower interest rate. The GAO just reported that on loans made between 2007 and 2012, the Federal Government is estimated to make $66 billion. Clearly, borrowers are paying more than they should, and we have to address these college costs. But we also have to deal with the issue of giving colleges and universities their incentive, their skin in the game, to ensure they carefully review their students' loans; that they direct students to the lowest cost and the lowest possible amount of loans; that they do this in a way which will make them truly responsible and conscious of the debt which is accumulated by students. I have been working on legislation to require that. So I commend Senators Durbin, Warren, and others for what they are doing to deal with this issue. Madam President, I yield the floor for my other colleagues.

Mr. REED. Madam President, again I compliment my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Warren, and Senator Gillibrand on their commitment to reinvigorating our higher education policy and doing it in an efficient and cost-effective way so the future generation of students are not so burdened that they cannot essentially rise up, buy a home, start a family, and do the things that my generation took for granted because there was strong support for higher education at every level of government.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:15 a.m. be equally divided between myself and the Senators from Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and both Senators from Connecticut; that at the conclusion of these remarks I be recognized to speak for an additional 3 minutes; and then following my remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.

Mr. REED. First let me add my accolades to those of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Senator Baucus. He is superbly prepared to be our next ambassador to China. He is a friend and colleague. The President chose wisely, and I anticipate his confirmation. In a few minutes we will have the opportunity to provide relief to 1.74 million job seekers, to help local business, to get people back to work, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have thoughtfully engaged with us to find a path forward. Many of their ideas are incorporated into this principled compromise. It has been 40 days since these Americans have had their unemployment insurance cut. Now is the time to act and help our economy grow. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of providing aid to 1.7 million Americans--growing each week by an estimated 70,000. This is the right thing to do. At this moment, this is the right way to do it, and the only question before the Senate is will we do the right thing for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, in a few hours this Chamber will have the opportunity to restore benefits for 1.7 million American job seekers and help reduce the national deficit by $1.2 billion. I believe my colleagues understand that this is a fiscally responsible way to help job seekers who are still struggling in the aftermath of the great recession. Unemployment insurance helps people to look for work while at the same time bolstering consumer demand and supporting the economy, which is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that renewing unemployment insurance for 1 year will save 200,000 jobs. This is an imperative. We must do it. On behalf of the families who are struggling, on behalf of our economy that needs the support, this is something which must be done. Now the question is whether we can move this critical bill forward and send help to those who are struggling through no fault of their own. Everyone understands that to qualify for unemployment insurance, they have to be working and they have to lose their job through no fault of their own, and they have to continue to search for work. The reality in this market is that there are, in many cases, three applicants for every job. We have all heard the stories when we have gone home to our States. There is a software engineer who worked for 20 years who has put out 300 resumes and who has followed people around to give them resumes. This individual was so persistent in trying to get a job in financial services that he would show up early in the morning and put his resume in the local newspaper for the head of the bank where he was interviewing. That eventually got him a callback, I am told, but not yet a job. It is very difficult. We can do what we have always done--help these struggling Americans and help our economy. At every point in this process, I believe we have responded to the issues raised by our colleagues to try to get this done. Instead of a full year of extended unemployment benefits--which I proposed, which we usually do--we compromised on a short-term extension just to get it done because since December 28 people have lost their benefits. They went off a cliff. Every week an estimated 70,000 more Americans lose their benefits. It is up to 1.7 million now, and it will be several million before this year has run out. So instead of a typical 1-year extension, we are asking for 3 months. Most of it or a large part of it is retroactive to make up to those people who lost their benefits beginning on December 28. I was joined--and I must thank him for his tremendous leadership--by Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. This is a bipartisan effort because this unemployment problem--particularly this long-term unemployment problem--knows no political dimension or geographic dimension or ethnic or gender dimension. It is an American problem, and Senator Heller and I are responding in a bipartisan way. We put what we thought was a pathway to provide immediate aid to these job seekers and to give us enough time to work through these complex issues many of my colleagues have raised, issues such as, can we make the program, overall, more effective? Can we incentivize individuals to seek employment more efficiently? Can we integrate training? All of those are important issues, but in the context of a 3-month emergency extension, the first thing to do is to get the relief to the people and then sit down and conscientiously and deliberately work on the details. When this concession on the short term extension wasn't enough to break the filibuster, Democrats put forth another proposal, again after consultation with our Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Heller, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Coats, and many others who consciously and conscientiously provided thoughts, provided input, et cetera. So this process was not ``my way or the highway.'' This was trying to find a bipartisan pathway, and we are still searching. Based on those comments, we proposed a fully paid-for extension of unemployment insurance. We started off with 11\1/2\ months fully paid for. We used the pay-for that would have been an extension of the mandatory savings agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, which had been endorsed by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. We also included in that proposal, the long-term proposal, a major policy change proposed by Senator Portman addressing overlapping unemployment and disability insurance payments. None of these were easy to accept on our side. The tradition has been unpaid-for unemployment extensions. Very few times have we paid for these benefits because they are considered emergency spending. This is an emergency. People are struggling out there. But we accepted the premise which our Republican colleagues suggested that this has to be paid for. Then we also accepted the premise that we couldn't pay for it with tax revenues. It would have to be paid for with something else. So we took a proposal that was embedded in the budget and we tried to use that together with a proposal that was first presented by Senator Portman. But we had a vote, a cloture vote, and none of our Republican colleagues supported it. Then we had a vote on the underlying measure, the short-term extension, the 3-month extension unpaid-for offered by Senator Heller and me--Senator Heller joined us on that vote, and I thank him for that--but we still did not have the significant number of Republican colleagues necessary not only to move this measure forward but also to do the right thing. We are here today and we have had another round of extensive discussions, consultations, and we are now about to pay for a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits. Some of it is retroactive, all of it is fully paid for. I will point out that it is February and this extension will go forward until March. We are reaching the point, ironically, where we might have more retroactive payments than prospective payments. That is why we have to move and we have to move today. It is not everything we wanted, certainly. As I said initially, we would have preferred a full year to give people certainty for the year. We would have, as we have done more times than not, declared it emergency spending. But in order to conscientiously and thoughtfully and cooperatively and collaboratively work with our colleagues, we have continually agreed to make concessions. I used to think that was the nature of political compromise, principled political compromise, and we have tried. Now we have a 3-month bill that is paid for by a technique called pension smoothing, which we have enacted on a bipartisan basis. In fact, the vote was 79 to 19 in the 2012 Transportation bill, MAP-21. So this is not a controversial pay-for. This is something we have embraced before. It is something that does not involve raising revenues, which is one of the benchmarks our colleagues laid down. So we have a short- term, fully paid-for UI benefit which can go out immediately to people who are suffering and which is paid for by a noncontroversial mechanism. Essentially, it will do what I think we have been requested to do by our colleagues on the other side. Our request is simply, support us in this effort so that we can get this legislation accomplished. One of the interesting things about this pay-for is that not only is it in the Transportation bill--due to expire, and we will extend it-- but also it has been used on numerous occasions by colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay for a various assembly of different legislative proposals. So this is not a controversial mechanism. I don't think unemployment insurance is controversial. I think people hopefully recognize that it is necessary in this situation. We have also included a provision in this proposal that has been championed aggressively and thoughtfully by Senator Coburn that will bar individuals with income of over $1 million from receiving Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It has passed this Chamber by a vote of 100 to 0. The other factor which I would argue to my colleagues is that as we pay for this extension, we are also able to approve $1.2 billion over 10 years to reduce the deficit. If my colleagues are looking for proposals that are fully paid for, reduce the deficit, and provide needed assistance to Americans who have worked, are looking for work, and desperately want a job, we need their vote this afternoon. I hope we can move forward on this bill and help unemployed Americans who are searching for work, help employers--this pension-smoothing mechanism helps employers--and also reduce the deficit. That is a very good trifecta, something I think we should support. The other point I want to make is that the notion that unemployment insurance, Federal long-term benefits, should be a political issue is in stark contrast to its history. Congress has renewed UI on a bipartisan basis in the past on numerous occasions. We did it three times under President Ronald Reagan. We did it five times under President George W. Bush. That is the precedent to get it done today. That is a pretty good precedent on a bipartisan basis under two Republican Presidents. One of the questions that comes up is does the Republican leadership--not some of the Members whom we have collaborated with very closely--want this to pass or will they say: No, no, forget the substance, it is so compelling. Let's talk about process. This is about how many amendments we have. This is about whether we can reform and reauthorize an entire legislative program based on a 3-month extension--most of which is rapidly becoming more retroactive, than prospective, than going forward. I think the American people see through this. The substance is clear. This program has been repeatedly reauthorized to deal with long-term unemployment under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents on a bipartisan basis. It is fully paid for. It is paid for by a noncontroversial technique that does not include raising revenues. In fact, the pay-for is something the corporate world supports. There are others who might say we are disappointed because there is another major issue out there, and there is; that is, the COLA cuts for military retirees. This is an issue that has to be dealt with, and it will be dealt with. But, I wish to point out that COLA does not become effective--those reductions--until December of 2015. People receiving UI lost their benefits December of last year. They are already suffering. There is no more time for them, in terms of our fixing it, before it takes effect. We need to act today. Indeed, it has been estimated there are 20,000 veterans who have been denied long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend this. So for those 20,000 veterans, I don't think it would be sufficient to tell them they are not going to get their unemployment insurance because we are worried about what is going to happen in December of 2015 to other veterans. If we want to help veterans right away, today, we can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision going forward. Let us help both the unemployed and our veterans and not try to use one group against the other, for a legislative advantage in terms of any one particular measure. The emergency for unemployment insurance that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more from now. We can't turn our back on 1.7 million Americans, with that number growing each week. We have to help them. It has been 40 days since unemployment insurance benefits expired for millions of Americans. That is 40 days too long for those who were downsized with the recession and now find their unemployment insurance benefits being downsized again by Congress--downsized practically to zero. I also wish to remind my colleagues about some of the reforms we already accomplished in 2012, because many of my colleagues have some very good ideas and they have talked about, well, if we are going to deal with unemployment insurance, let us deal with it in a way we can also make some structural reforms. In 2012, I was part of the conference committee between the House and the Senate where legislation was formally considered in this body, in the other body, and brought to a conference in regular order and we had a very vigorous debate about the structure of unemployment compensation, and significant structural reforms were made to the program. This is not a situation where we have neglected to look at the unemployment compensation program for years and years and years. It was 2 years ago we made these changes. We strengthened the job search requirement. We have indeed allowed States, if they choose to, to drug screen applicants, which is an extremely controversial provision. That was included because we were responding to particularly many Members of the House of Representatives who said this had to be something the States can do. Well, this is something the States can do. I don't think most States have taken up the option, but this is something they can do. Indeed, after the House passed this agreement, Representative Camp issued a statement noting--in his words--the historic reforms of the Federal unemployment programs are an important part of this agreement. These reforms will now help the unemployed get the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck. The package overturns arcane 1960s-era regulations and allows States to drug screen and test those most at risk. I am always willing to listen to proposals to make changes, but we have to recognize we made significant changes to this program, in Mr. Camp's words--revising provisions that had been there since the 1960s, and that was about 2 years ago. So we have made these changes. But we are willing to work in good faith if additional changes are necessary. However, they shouldn't block a 3-month extension, much of it retroactive, that is pending before the Senate today. Let me make one other point. In the context of this debate, there has been the suggestion that unemployment insurance is in some way inappropriate, immoral. It encourages people to avoid work. It makes us, as Americans, lazy and dependent. That is not what I see when I go back home. What I see are people who say--even recognizing my efforts to try to get this bill passed--that is fine, but what I truly want is a job. I want to work. I want to work for many reasons. One, the $350 a week I get, that barely keeps my family whole. It is a little help for gasoline, a little help with the rent, but I can't live on that. I have to have a job. By the way, I think most Americans want to work because work defines us. Work gives us not just a place to go but gives meaning to all of us, just as family does. So this notion this is just this program that indulges those who don't want to work is profoundly wrong. Indeed, it is an insult to millions of Americans who desperately want a job. By definition, unemployment insurance is based on an individual's work history. This is not a program you qualify for by showing up. You have to be let go, basically. You have to be told: We can't keep you anymore. We are sorry. You are a good worker, but we can't keep you. You have to go. In fact, if you are not a good worker, if you are fired for cause, you don't get these benefits. And then they actively have to keep looking for work. As I said, in the 2012 legislative provisions, we gave the States more authority to make that active search much more active, much more real--not perfunctory but an active search. Because of the obstructions we have seen, most Americans now are just simply eligible for 26 weeks of assistance--the standard program administered by the States. But the Washington Post notes it takes an average job seeker about 32 weeks to get hired, and in some cases even longer because of high unemployment. In my State it is 9.1 percent. There are some States where it is remarkably low because of the particular economic conditions there. But as the Post points out, for the average worker, it is 32 weeks. Those 26 weeks will not cover their unemployment period as they desperately search for work. The other cruel fact is the longer one is unemployed, the harder it is to get a job. That is what we know from research. That is what we know from our own sense of the economy. So the notion that someone, such as a chemical engineer who has been out of work for 7 months, who has a great work record--the first time he or she has ever lost their job--should take the first thing available to him or her at the lowest cost, the lowest wage, No. 1, I think devalues their lifetime effort; and No. 2, it potentially denies us of their productivity. I would rather see a chemical engineer work at a job related to chemical engineering than stocking shelves because his productivity, his or her contribution to society, would be much greater doing the job they were trained for and they have the experience to do. Our Nation is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to put their talents, their skills, and their experience to work. We need to get our country back to full employment. We all know that is the answer. This is an emergency provision, a bridge, if you will, to a job. We have to do more not only to put people back to work but to make the wages they receive allow them to live not just paycheck to paycheck but to live with the sense they are building some security for themselves and their family. We have the resources to achieve this. We are paying for this provision. We are not putting it on the shoulders of the next generation. We are limiting it to a very short period of time so there is an opportunity to work and look at what we did in 2012 and see if we can do more. The question before us is, Does this Senate have the will to make it happen? Renewing unemployment insurance isn't the end of our efforts. Our efforts are to get more jobs out there so people don't need unemployment insurance; that it is not 32 weeks to get a new job but is several days, we hope. This is the building block we need to put in place to move forward. This process, this expiration, has caused Rhode Islanders in my home State great hardship. It is time to end that hardship. So I urge my colleagues to renew this program. This is one of those issues where it simply comes down, in my view, to this: This is the right thing to do. I honestly believe there are many more than 60 of my colleagues who fundamentally believe this is the right thing to do and the right way to do it. The question is, Will they vote that way in a few hours? I hope they do. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and that all quorum calls during that time also be equally divided.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, our Nation has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve To keep us safe. As the challenges facing our service members change, we must work to ensure that our laws continue to keep pace. In this regard, I have worked with my colleagues over the years to strengthen the protections for service members and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, SCRA. One such effort, the Servicemember Housing Protection Act, which I authored and was recently reported out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, would enhance protections relating to the housing needs of our service members. I am pleased that these provisions have also been included in legislation the Senate will hopefully soon take up, Senator Sanders's Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, which I have cosponsored. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Today, I am joining Senator Graham in introducing on a bipartisan basis legislation to further enhance SCRA protections. The SCRA Rights Protection Act seeks to protect service members from being forced to accept mandatory arbitration clauses as part of everyday transactions, such as those relating to mortgage origination, automobile leases, and student loans. Often service members sign contracts that include arbitration clauses buried in the fine print, and this eliminates their access to the courts, which can limit their ability to assert their rights and reach a fair resolution. In disputes involving SCRA rights, this bill would make arbitration clauses unenforceable unless all parties consent to arbitration after the dispute arises, and would also ensure that service members retain their right to join with other service members to file a case together as a class. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these improvements to the SCRA that will better protect our military families while the men and women of our Armed Forces protect our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, our Nation has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve To keep us safe. As the challenges facing our service members change, we must work to ensure that our laws continue to keep pace. In this regard, I have worked with my colleagues over the years to strengthen the protections for service members and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, SCRA. One such effort, the Servicemember Housing Protection Act, which I authored and was recently reported out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, would enhance protections relating to the housing needs of our service members. I am pleased that these provisions have also been included in legislation the Senate will hopefully soon take up, Senator Sanders's Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, which I have cosponsored. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Today, I am joining Senator Graham in introducing on a bipartisan basis legislation to further enhance SCRA protections. The SCRA Rights Protection Act seeks to protect service members from being forced to accept mandatory arbitration clauses as part of everyday transactions, such as those relating to mortgage origination, automobile leases, and student loans. Often service members sign contracts that include arbitration clauses buried in the fine print, and this eliminates their access to the courts, which can limit their ability to assert their rights and reach a fair resolution. In disputes involving SCRA rights, this bill would make arbitration clauses unenforceable unless all parties consent to arbitration after the dispute arises, and would also ensure that service members retain their right to join with other service members to file a case together as a class. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these improvements to the SCRA that will better protect our military families while the men and women of our Armed Forces protect our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reauthorization of the farm bill presented an opportunity to make much needed changes in our agriculture policy to rein in taxpayer subsidies for big agribusiness, support the growth of small farms and local food systems, and ensure that our constituents in need do not go hungry. Unfortunately, despite the extraordinary efforts of Chairwoman Stabenow, the reforms included in the bill before us today fall much too short. Most troubling is that the bill cuts more than $8 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I cannot support reducing hunger assistance for the most vulnerable Americans while creating new crop insurance programs, increasing crop insurance spending by $5.7 billion, and continuing to subsidize the wealthiest farmers. As such, I will oppose this bill. The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging in my State, where roughly 1 in 6 Rhode Islanders receive SNAP benefits--a reflection of the challenging economic times in our State, where the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the highest in the country. According to a survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 15 percent of Rhode Islanders are food insecure, meaning they do not always know where they will find their next meal and thus are at risk of hunger. And this number has grown over the last 5 years, from 58,000 households to more than 66,500 today. Many local food banks like the Rhode Island Community Food Bank--are struggling to keep pace as the need for food assistance grows. The SNAP cuts in this bill cannot be easily made up by food banks and other charitable organizations even with increased funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program. While the conference agreement does not include the far more damaging policy changes proposed by the House, it will reduce benefits for about 850,000 low-income households by an average of $90 a month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is on top of the across-the- board cut that hit all SNAP households last November when the benefit boost under the 2009 Recovery Act expired. When these cuts went into effect, families of 4 lost an average of $36 a month, while single- person households lost an average of $11. Without the Recovery Act boost, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal in 2014. Now we are asking some of our most vulnerable constituents to get by with even less--all while growing the safety net for the wealthiest farmers and the crop insurance industry. This is unacceptable. As I noted, these remain trying economic times, with many Americans still struggling to find work or working low-wage jobs that do not provide the resources necessary to meet basic needs like food. This is not the time to cut a lifeline benefit like SNAP. I am deeply disappointed that some of the savings generated in this bill were not reinvested into SNAP to help meet the need for food assistance across this country. Unfortunately, the conference agreement also maintains the duplicative USDA catfish program--a program that both the House and the Senate have voted to repeal, the Government Accountability Office has called wasteful, and the administration proposed defunding in its fiscal year 2014 budget. This program would require seafood processors to comply with USDA regulations for catfish while the FDA would continue to oversee inspections for all other seafood. According to the GAO, repealing this program would avoid duplication of Federal programs and save taxpayers millions of dollars annually. We should be finding ways to make government processes more efficient, not less. While I am unable to support the conference report because of the deep cuts to SNAP and inadequate reforms to crop insurance and farm subsidy payments, I would like to acknowledge several provisions in this bill, including several that will support the development of local and regional food systems and improve the affordability of and access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low-income families. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes many measures from a bill that I cosponsored, Senator Brown's Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act, that will increase funding for specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. Another measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions. The bill also allows Community Supported Agriculture operations to redeem SNAP benefits and creates Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grants, providing $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets by SNAP participants. A similar program has already been successfully implemented in Rhode Island. Farm Fresh Rhode Island runs the ``Bonus Bucks'' program where every $5 in SNAP benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to receive an additional $2 to spend on fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs, fish, meats, and cheeses produced by local farmers and fishermen. Within the first year that ``Bonus Bucks'' was implemented, Farm Fresh Rhode Island saw a 675 percent increase in the amount of SNAP spent at their markets. In 2013, 22 Rhode Island farmers markets up from 8 in 2008, have booths that can accept EBT cards. It is exciting to see the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to help ensure that low-income families have access to nutritious local foods. These types of programs also help grow local food economies by encouraging purchases from local producers. A win-win. The bill also makes several changes to enhance and promote conservation. Requiring farmers to comply with conservation practices in order to receive taxpayer-supported subsidies on crop insurance will help further the conservation of natural resources and ensure that our farmers remain good stewards of the land. Thankfully, the conferees rejected a harmful amendment included in the House bill that would have had far-reaching consequences by prohibiting States from regulating agricultural products within their jurisdiction. This bill also makes it a federal crime to attend or bring a child under the age of 16 to an animal fighting event--a slightly modified version of a bill I cosponsored that was introduced by Senator Blumenthal. The conference report also includes legislation to reauthorize the National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA. I have cosponsored bills to reauthorize this program during the last several Congresses and am glad it will now become law. NORA seeks to strengthen and improve the oil heating industry through education and training and improving home heating efficiency. With more than 1 in 3 Rhode Islanders dependent on fuel oil to heat their homes this winter and heating oil prices on the rise, it is important to reauthorize NORA. While Chairwoman Stabenow's efforts helped to ensure some positive provisions and reforms, the bill simply does not go far enough. It wisely eliminates direct payments but restores some of those cuts by creating new crop insurance programs, while not going far enough to limit commodity and crop insurance subsidy payouts. The bill does not even include an amendment that I cosponsored and was passed in the Senate to set income limitations for crop insurance making a very modest 5 percent reduction for farmers making over $750,000 annually. We must do more to ensure that farm subsidies are available to the small and medium-sized farms that need it most and rein in the taxpayer subsidies to large, wealthy farming operations. And we certainly should not be paying for expensive farm programs by cutting SNAP, thereby placing additional burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. We are at a critical moment. It has been 38 days since the emergency unemployment compensation expired, forcing now not 1.6 million but 1.7 million Americans off an economic cliff and also draining $2.2 billion from State economies, and this is according to estimates based on data from the Department of Labor and the Ways and Means Committee Democrats. This has had a huge impact on families and a huge impact on the economy throughout this country. Congress should be doing everything to focus on creating jobs and improving our economy. This week we have an opportunity to do that. That is why we should vote to renew unemployment insurance and help put more Americans back to work. Restoring these benefits is an imperative. We must do it. We have to act with a sense of urgency. People are out there every day looking for employment. They are doing everything they can to support their families and themselves. While this modest level of support helps them stay afloat, what they really want is a job. So our constituents, who are trying so hard and doing what they need to do in order to provide for themselves and their families, are looking to Congress to uphold its end of the bargain. Many of our constituents are running out of options. The rent is coming due. The telephone bill is coming due, and without a phone they can't actively compete for work. There is no way employers can get hold of them. College tuition is coming due for middle-aged people who are out looking for jobs, for their children, and some people who are paying their way through college. They are being squeezed from all sides, and the expiration of these benefits is hurting not only them but it is hurting our economy overall. Time is of the essence. It has been 7 weeks since Senator Heller and I introduced a bipartisan short-term plan that was designed to provide immediate relief. We tried different permutations of extending these benefits, provisions the other side said they wanted, but to this point without success. I must say that I have found not only Senator Heller but many of my colleagues on the other side both thoughtful and willing to contribute--Senator Collins, Senator Coats, Senator Portman, and so many others, who are sincere in trying to get this done. But what we have to do is get over this 60-vote threshold, at least to provide this immediate relief of 3 months to our constituents. Again, the face of those unemployed in this downturn is a bit different than in the past. We are hearing and seeing more and more middle-aged workers who have worked all their lives and for the first time are confronted with unemployment. They sent out hundreds of resumes. They sought job interviews, many times unsuccessfully. They are squeezed because they are trying to support parents at the same time they are trying to support children who are in college or young adults who are at home. This is a tremendous toll on people who have worked hard all of their lives. They are simply asking us to step up, as we have done consistently in the past, and give them some modest support while they search for work. We are 1 month into 2014 and still debating a 3-month fix. At some point, we will reach the point where the retroactive benefits will be greater than the benefits going forward for the 3-month fix. That is not a place we want to be, not for people who have worked hard. The only way to qualify for unemployment insurance is to be working and then, through no fault of your own, to be dismissed from your work--and you still have to look for work. That is the whole program. So it is not right. I think we have to move forward, and we have done this on a bipartisan basis three times under President Ronald Reagan, five times under George W. Bush, with overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis, no question. In fact, most times they were completely unpaid for. It was emergency spending, not only because people needed the emergency aid, but it is a great form of economic support to our economy. The CBO estimates that if we fail to extend for the full year these benefits, we will lose 200,000 jobs over 2014, at a time when our first priority should be to put more jobs in the marketplace. We have a plan today that is short term, 3 months, retroactive to December 28. It is fully paid for by extending pension smoothing for 4 more years. In addition to paying for these benefits, it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion over 10 years, so we have a mechanism that not only helps people but also goes to the issue of the deficit, which is another pressing concern, particularly to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This offset has been used before. It passed 79 to 19 as part of the 2012 MAP-21 transportation bill. This is a noncontroversial pay-for. It has been proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle with various proposals requiring pay-fors. We have an urgent need, a very short-term focus, and a noncontroversial pay-for, and I will urge my colleagues, let's support this, let's move this. If there is work to be done on the architecture of unemployment insurance, if there are other collateral issues or issues that could be thrown into the mix, let's get this done and then let's focus on those issues. This amendment also incorporates a measure that Senator Coburn has proposed that would bar millionaires, individuals making over $1 million, from qualifying for unemployment insurance. This measure has been unanimously supported 100 to 0 in this Chamber, so we thought we would go ahead and put that in as an additional measure that would be embraced by everyone in the Chamber. This is an issue that has huge support among the American public. There is a FOX News poll that says over two-thirds of Americans support and want Congress to act now to extend unemployment insurance. Let me again thank my colleagues on the other side who have worked very sincerely and very diligently to come up with a solution. I say to them: Thank you. I appreciate it. My concern is helping--as their concern is--those constituents who are getting increasingly desperate. We share this. Now what we have to do is find a pathway forward. I hope, because of the short-term nature of this bill, because of the noncontroversial pay-for, that we can get this done, and then I think we can embark on a much more expansive review on a much more expansive set of issues with respect to UI and other issues that have come before the Chamber. It is time to vote--vote aye--to get this measure passed. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I could praise my colleague for his eloquence and for his passion and say how right he is. I thank my colleague Senator Menendez for allowing me to speak, but I wanted to commend Senator Booker for his brilliance and for his dedication. I want to applaud the Senator for New Jersey for his maiden speech and for using this opportunity to focus on the urgent need to renew unemployment insurance for over 1.7 million Americans. The expiration has drained an estimated $2.2 billion from State economies according to estimates based on data from the Department of Labor and the Ways and Means Committee. Our constituents, who lost their job through no fault of their own and are searching for work in this extremely challenging economy, are looking to Congress to renew this commonsense and very modest support. They've worked hard and are searching for work with just as much fervor. But on December 28 the rug was pulled out from under them because some of my colleagues on the other side had decided they would rather let emergency unemployment insurance expire. And yet we have traditionally extended aid when the long-term unemployment rate remains as high as it still unfortunately is. Democrats have been pushing to extend this vital lifeline since before its expiration. And on December 17, Senator Heller and I introduced a bipartisan path forward--and I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his support for that measure. This emergency extension for unemployment insurance for 3 months would give us more time to work on a year-long extension and address the concerns raised by some of my colleagues. This way folks in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Kentucky--jobseekers all over the Nation--would not lose unemployment insurance as we work through these complex issues. Unfortunately, that immediate aid was filibustered despite our efforts. That did not deter us. We have kept on working through those issues raised by some of my Republican colleagues and we have addressed them. We are now proposing a 3-month fully paid extension--which is way out of line with past extensions. Indeed, 17 of the 20 times that emergency aid was extended no strings were attached. President Reagan extended emergency aid three times and President George W. Bush did it five times. We are still working to secure enough votes to break a potential filibuster. We are not there yet, but I remain hopeful. Yet the clock is ticking. I hope some of my Republican colleagues understand that jobseekers deserve a solution now and not procedural delays or obstruction. So I look forward to continue working with Senator Booker on doing everything we can to extend this vital aid to our constituents immediately.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, my amendment would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency--FEMA--to study and report on the advisability of establishing voluntary community-based flood insurance policies under the National Flood Insurance Program--NFIP. The Government Accountability Office would be required to review and comment on FEMA's study. The study will help answer important questions about how such voluntary community-based policies could be implemented within the National Flood Insurance Program. It does not commit FEMA, the Congress, or local communities to take any action. It simply calls for fact-finding and analysis that could provide the basis for improvements to the flood insurance program. The idea of community-based flood insurance is to assess the risk for all properties within a community and collect premiums from the community rather than from individual property owners. By purchasing insurance at the community level, willing local governments--and I emphasize willing and voluntary--may be able to spread the cost of premiums equitably among property owners. In addition, they may be able to increase participation in the flood insurance program, including among property owners who are within the 100-year flood plain but who are not subject to the mandatory purchase requirement because they do not carry a federally backed mortgage. Expanding participation would ensure that all properties in the flood plain have coverage from risk. Beyond increasing coverage and participation, community-based insurance may also offer new opportunities and incentives for communities to deal with affordability, including by undertaking mitigation efforts that will reduce risk and insurance costs. Indeed, the amendment specifically requires FEMA to develop a strategy that incorporates mitigation into its recommendations for community-based policies. For communities in Rhode Island and along the east coast that are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and the reality of sea level rise and climate change, this could offer another tool to prepare. There are important questions to be answered about the feasibility of such an option and how it might be offered. That is what this amendment seeks to do. A study of this option has been included in separate amendments and bills sponsored by proponents and opponents of the underlying bill, and it has been approved by the House twice as a freestanding bill. Indeed, it has been part of bills or amendments sponsored or cosponsored by Chairman Johnson, Senator Crapo, Senator Shelby, and Senator Landrieu. I thank the managers and authors of the underlying bill--Senators Menendez, Landrieu, and Isakson--for their work. They have done an extraordinary job in working to ensure my amendment could be considered. I believe this amendment will add to the goals of the underlying bill of which I am a cosponsor. Given the bipartisan support for this concept, I hope it could be adopted by a voice vote. Before I yield the floor, one point. We have another emergency that is facing us, not only floods and rising waters, but unemployment insurance. I ask if we could continue the bipartisan dialog we have had. I salute my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have been principled in their pursuit of this objective, and we can move on that issue also. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen McLaughlin, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of the 113th Congress.