Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 274, S. Res. 319.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 273, S. Res. 318.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jeff Fine and Lawrence Meehan, fellows in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for this session of the 113th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on December 28, 1.3 million Americans lost their extended unemployment benefits. They are the first wave of what will be more than 3 million other Americans. These people have worked, they have qualified for unemployment insurance, they need help, and we have to help them. If we don't do that, not only will these families suffer, the economy will suffer. The CBO estimated we will lose 200,000 jobs if we don't extend unemployment benefits, and 0.2 percent of growth. If we want to help working families--people who qualify because they worked and have to continue to look for work to be qualified--and our economy, then vote to at least let us go forward. Give us 3 months to work on issues, funding, and anything else, but don't throw these people off a cliff and leave them without anything.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Reed-Heller bill, which would extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans--very critical--for 3 months, because it is the right thing to do for these workers, and it is the smart thing to do for our economy. Unemployment insurance has been around since the 1930s, and it has historically received bipartisan support. Indeed, I am pleased that Senator Heller has joined me. So this is a bipartisan bill, also. This is something we have to deal with today. It is a huge crisis. As I said, 1.3 million Americans have lost their benefits as of December 28. But we can expect through this next year approximately 3 million more to exhaust their State benefits--typically 26 weeks--and not have this Federal long-term benefit available to them. This has always received support on a bipartisan basis because it is not a red State and blue State issue. It is something which impacts this entire country. It impacts people who work. You cannot get this program unless you have a job and, through no fault of your own, you have lost that job. In this economy, people who lose jobs are competing with many others for very few jobs. These 1.3 million Americans were pushed off an economic cliff just 9 days ago. This vital lifeline would help them cope. They were not let go from their jobs because of something they did. It was through no fault of their own, and they are searching for work in an economy which has nearly three job seekers for every one job opening. Illustrative of this is a front-page story in the Washington Post today. In Maryland, they are opening up a new dairy operation, and what this story speaks to is something that is happening across this country in so many places: When the Good Humor ice cream plant closed here two summers ago, more than 400 jobs and a stable, punch-the-clock way of life melted away, another in a string of plant closings that have battered this once-proud manufacturing town. I would add parenthetically that in Connecticut, Rhode Island, west coast, east coast, north and south, we have seen this happen. Manufacturing plants close, move overseas, and shut down entirely. The hulking plant sat vacant until a co-op of Virginia dairy farmers purchased it in summer 2013 to process milk and ice cream, though on a far smaller scale than the 60,000 cases of ice cream that global food giant Unilever churned out every day. Randy Inman, the board president for Shenandoah Family Farms, said he expected the plant's revival to trigger plenty of interest in its three dozen or so initial jobs. What he did not expect: 1,600 applicants and counting--a deluge. That is what this economy is about. Skilled people lose jobs through plant closures, many of them working for decades, and suddenly they see a possibility. But it is not one job for one applicant. It is 1,600 applicants for about 36 jobs. They are trying--they are trying awfully hard. But unless we pass this legislation this evening and begin the process, we are not trying. On the economic side of the ledger, moving away from the human dynamic, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that failure to renew unemployment insurance will cost the economy 200,000 jobs and sap 0.2 percent of economic growth by the end of the year. Why? Because these payments go to people who are really desperate. They need this extra cash. It is about $300, maybe $350 a week. They need it to pay rent, to buy groceries, to keep the boiler running in subzero temperatures, to keep their families together as they look for work. By the way, in order to collect, you have to keep looking for work. So this program is not just fair to people who have worked hard. It is smart for our economy. This is one of the best fiscal tools we have available to ensure that we are creating demand, creating additional jobs. As I indicated, if we do not pass this, if these benefits lapse and go away, 200,000 jobs will be lost--at a time when every Member of this body would say one of the most important jobs is to create more jobs in America. We can do that, but we have to start today on this procedural vote. Our bill is designed to help families who have weathered the toughest part of the great recession--2008, 2009, 2010--and many were laid off about 1 year ago. The maximum extended unemployment benefits is 72 weeks, which includes, in most cases, 26 weeks of State benefits. So they got through the hardest part of this recession, which suggests to me these are good workers. These are people who were struggling and working when unemployment was much higher, and now they need help. I believe we have to give them that help. We should be working together to create an expanded economy so the jobs are there, so that when there is a new plant opening it is not just 36 jobs and 1,600 applicants, so it is a lot more jobs. In fact, we would like to see it the other way. We would like to see 1,600 jobs and 1,600 applicants. We have to do that. I have heard from a lot of my colleagues who said they cannot do this because they need an offset. This has traditionally been emergency spending. It is emergency spending up until December 28 because we extended it last year on an emergency basis, probably creating on the order of 200,000 jobs--just as we will lose 200,000 jobs if we do not extend it--and helping our economy overall. We have to do this. We have tailored this--Senator Heller and I--so that it is just 3 months, so it provides immediate assistance to unemployed workers. It is retroactive, so we will pick up the people who lost their benefits on December 28. But it also gives the Senate, the appropriate committees, and the House the ability to think through this program in an orderly way, to make changes if necessary, and to look for appropriate offsets if it is deemed that those offsets are necessary. But it will in these 3 months ensure that people have something to help them get by while we do our job. By my count, colleagues have voted to move forward on these non- offset emergency benefits more than 10 times since 2008. More than ten times we have taken up this unemployment insurance program and we have passed it on an emergency basis without offsets, so this is not a new, novel approach. In fact, what is somewhat new is actually providing offsets for this emergency spending. I wouldn't hesitate to say I venture that if we brought up a bill that had huge tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, there would be very little discussion on the other side that it should be offset, but when we are talking about a program that helps working people, we have to have offsets? Traditionally, we have not done it, and we can have that conversation, but in order to have it appropriately and help these people, we have to move this legislation forward to give us the time to work constructively, collaboratively, and thoughtfully on the program and also on possible offsets. We should not be filibustering this measure. We should be passing it and then working collegially and cooperatively to improve the program if we can and, if we deem it appropriate, to pay for the program. I have heard some of my colleagues say we need offsets. They are very vague about what types of offsets. There are some suggestions about Medicare, Social Security, or discretionary spending. I do not think Americans, our constituents, would want to see those types of cuts. I think they are relieved, in fact, that through the good work of Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan, we have a budget for 2 years and we are doing appropriations bills and we are beginning to provide certainty and support for the economy. I do sense, though, that my constituents know there are many people out there who are struggling to find a job, who want to work and need a little help just to get by. That is what we would be doing if we pass these measures this afternoon or begin the process of passing them this afternoon. Again, I think if we are going to seriously talk about offsets or programmatic changes or responding to different dynamics in the economy, it should not be done here on the floor with dueling amendments or dueling proposals, it should be done through regular order in the committee. I offered a 1-year extension that was not offset, and my Republican colleagues objected, and I completely understand the privilege of doing that and the right to do that. One of the arguments was that it should go through committee. This 3-month bill does both. It helps people immediately, and it gives us the time to do our job. A few weeks ago I also came to the floor to address an argument that has been percolating throughout this discussion that somehow this whole unemployment insurance program is just being abused, that beneficiaries would rather collect than work. The reality is that I think $300 a week or $350 a week is not something for which people would give up good jobs or allow themselves to be displaced from those jobs just to collect the benefit. I believe Americans really want to work and they want to get back to work as quickly as they can. They want to do the work for which they have been trained. They want to do the work in which some of them have spent decades investing not just their time but their whole selves. One of the interesting things about work is that it is not only a form of economic remuneration, it is a way we define ourselves. Within a few minutes of meeting any stranger, I bet one question pops up: What do you do for a living? It is awfully difficult today for millions of Americans to say: I am just looking desperately for a job. But millions are. I discussed earlier that there is academic research out there that has been bandied about suggesting that, no, this is a ruse, an abuse. But research actually supports the notion that individuals would rather work than collect unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance benefits, as I have indicated, are a fraction of what an individual would earn in the job he had previously. These are benefits that keep people whole while they are searching for work. There was a very eloquent editorial by Charles Blow in the New York Times that addressed some of these issues. I think his words are very thoughtful because they strike the right tone. He wrote: Whereas I am sure that some people will abuse any form of help, I'm by no means convinced that this is the exclusive domain of the poor and put-upon. Businesses and the wealthy regularly take advantage of subsidies and tax loopholes without blinking an eye. But somehow, when some poor people, or those who unexpectedly fall on hard times, take advantage of benefits for which they are eligible, it's an indictment of the morality and character of the poor as a whole. I don't think that is the case. I agree with Mr. Blow. These are people who want to work, but they need some help. We have given them help in the past, and we should continue to do so. This program has been a critical, crucial safety net for families, helping them avoid poverty, helping them get back on their feet, helping them get back into the workforce. It has been with us since the Great Depression. It affects a whole spectrum of individuals. Indeed, if we look at 2012 data, about 40 percent of the households that receive these benefits had an income prior to job loss of between $30,000 and $75,000. These are middle-income Americans who would much rather be working and making close to what they made before they were laid off than collecting $300 a week. So these benefits are not the exclusive province of the very poor. In fact, more and more they are middle-class, middle-age people who never thought they would be on unemployment insurance, who need this. They are supporting elderly parents. They have children. They have mortgages. They had a professional career--accountant, paralegal, bookkeeper. They are now looking desperately for work. They are people who used to work in dairy processing plants or people who used to work as vice presidents for sales who are so desperate--I assume some of these people, if we looked at their resumes, would be qualified to do many things other than work at a plant, but they are looking because they desperately need work. We hear this argument, though: Oh, it is a program that doesn't work and the people are undeserving and we are not even doing them a favor by letting them have this benefit. I disagree. I think we have to pass this measure. We have to do it because it is the right thing for these families, it is the right thing for our constituents, and it is the right thing for the economy. It would be foolish, frankly, to take a program that we are confident can save 200,000 jobs, can increase GDP by .2 percent, that is one of the best forms of fiscal policy to stimulate demand and economic growth, and say we are not going to do it. I think we say we have to do it. There is another aspect of this, too, particularly appropriate to the issue of long-term unemployment. We are seeing a remarkable number of long-term unemployed individuals in this recession. Typically, Congress has only ended these benefits when the long-term unemployment rate was 1.3 percent. Today it's double that at 2.6 percent. Again, this program is a program that takes care of the long-term unemployed. The standard program in the States is one of 26 weeks. If you have a brief episode of unemployment, if you lose a job and then 5 weeks later you get a job, you are in that first tranche of State benefits. The long-term unemployed are those who have been without work for at least 26 weeks. We have seen the number of long-term unemployed double since previous recessions--from 1.3 percent to 2.6 percent. So this program is more important now than in any previous economic downturn we have had based upon looking at these numbers. This is another reason we have to extend these benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this procedural vote so that the full Senate can consider the measure and move toward passage. We need to move swiftly to pass this bipartisan bill to provide some certainty, some stability, and some support for families who are struggling in a very difficult market. The answer I suggest to those who are considering voting against cloture this evening is, fine, you can come down and tell the clerk no. What are you going to tell the 1,600 people in Hagerstown, MD, and across this country who are desperately looking for work and need some support? What are you going to tell them? No? I hope not. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, student loan debt continues to climb. According to an analysis by the Institute for College Access, average student loan debt has increased by 6 percent each year since 2008. In 2012, over 70 percent of college graduates had debt, owing an average of $29,400. This is a growing drag on our economy. In this summer's National Association of Realtors survey, 49 percent of the respondents identified student loan debt as a huge obstacle to home ownership--more than those who identified having enough money for a down payment or having enough confidence in their job security. It is clear that the more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt has serious implications for the broader economy. We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. Default rates are on the rise. 13.4 percent of borrowers entering repayment in 2009 defaulted within three years. The rate jumped to 14.7 percent for borrowers entering repayment in 2010. We cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and student borrowing. States are critical partners in making college accessible and affordable. However, state support for higher education has declined in recent years, contributing to rising tuition costs at public colleges and universities. According to the latest State Higher Education Finance report published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers, state spending per full-time equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011. In the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success, PASS, Act that I am introducing today, we will re-establish a robust, Federal- State partnership for college affordability and student success. I long worked to fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program, an initiative that engaged the states in matching federal funds to provide need-based grants to students. LEAP was modest in scale. The legislation I am introducing today calls for a more ambitious and comprehensive Federal-State partnership for higher education. The PASS Act will authorize $1 billion for a State formula grant program. In order to participate, states must make a commitment to maintain their investment in higher education and must have a comprehensive plan for higher education with measurable goals for access, affordability, and student outcomes. At least 70 percent of the funding must be dedicated to need-based student financial aid. States also have the option of awarding grants to colleges and universities or partnerships between institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations to improve student outcomes, including enrollment, completion, and employment, and to develop innovative methods for reducing college costs. I am pleased to have the support of the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and U.S PIRG in advancing this legislation. Institutions also have a critical role to play in curbing student loan debt. To ensure that institutions have more skin in the game, so they provide a better and more affordable education to students, which will in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults, I am proud to be introducing the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin and Warren. The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have 25 percent or more of their students borrow would be included in risk sharing based on their cohort default rate. Risk-sharing requirements would kick in when default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institutional default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment. The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions, provided that they are making progress in their student loan management plans. The risk-sharing payments will be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant program. With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. We need all stakeholders in the system to do their part. With the PASS Act and the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for states and institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and look forward to working with them to include these and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act; the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I believe I have a few minutes left--2 minutes. So before Senator McCain takes the floor, let me make a few more points that I think are critical. Last month, the economy did add jobs--203,000 jobs. But what we are seeing is the average length of unemployment is increasing. People are still out of work now an average of 36 weeks. That is more than 20 weeks longer than prerecession levels, and it is longer than the 26 weeks of State unemployment insurance. That is why we are here asking for benefits. People now are averaging a much longer time without finding work. This is not a situation where they fall within the State program. They have to have these Federal benefits, because it is harder and harder to find work. I would also suggest, too, that if you look at it another way, in 2008, when President Bush started this emergency unemployment compensation program, it took the average jobless American 5.6 months to find employment. Now, with the increased long-term unemployment, it takes about 9 months. So again, this is a reason why these long-term extended benefits are absolutely necessary. I would hope our colleagues would join myself and Senator Heller and Chairman Baucus and Senator Stabenow and others and continue to move aggressively forward and see if we can, in fact, extend the benefits so that many Americans can continue to have some assistance and some sustenance as they continue to look for work. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I do not modify my request. I would insist on my request since it is the only practical means of getting the measure passed.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I commend the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, especially the chairman, Senator Levin, on reaching an agreement with the House to complete this important legislation. For 51 consecutive years, the Senate has passed a defense authorization bill, and I hope we will be able to soon send the bill before us to President Obama for his signature. We owe it to our servicemembers to pass a law that will support them and enable the DOD to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively. We made tough decisions in putting together this bill--especially in these difficult economic times. But this bill will allow DOD to combat current threats, plan for future threats, and provide for the welfare of our brave servicemembers. While it is disappointing that we did not have sufficient time to debate amendments, this is a good compromise bill and it is critical that we pass it. I would like to point out a few of the highlights of this bill: It authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for our men and women in uniform; includes 36 key provisions to strengthen sexual assault prevention and response programs; extends authorities to continue several ``train and equip'' programs to assist foreign militaries in counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions; and authorizes $6.2 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to further build the capacity of the Afghan army and police so those forces can take over security throughout Afghanistan by December 2014. This year I once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, alongside Senator McCain, the ranking member. Working together, our subcommittee focused on the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, and strategic mobility forces. We put particular emphasis on supporting marine and naval forces engaged in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs. Specifically, the bill includes the required funding for two Virginia-class submarines and provides an additional $100 million to support buying the 10th DDG-51 under the current multiyear procurement program. The bill also approves the funding for other major programs, including the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program, the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft. I am particularly pleased about the funding for the Virginia-class submarines and the DDG-1000, which so many Rhode Islanders help to build. Working together with Senator McCain, this bill increases accountability for taxpayers' dollars spent on several major Navy programs. For example, the bill includes language to increase the CVN- 78 cost cap, while excluding certain urgent and unforeseen testing costs from that cap. In addition, we require quarterly reports on the program manager's estimate for CVN-79, and we freeze the payment of fees whenever the program manager's estimate of total program costs exceeds the cost cap. In this bill, we also require the CNO to submit a report identifying the current littoral combat ship, LCS, concept of operations and the expected survivability of each sea frame; we require the GAO to review the LCS program; and we limit future procurements of the LCS until the Navy produces certain reports and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes certain certifications about the LCS program. The bill also amends the language of the annual 30-year shipbuilding report to require the disclosure of ship prices assumed in the plan and a risk assessment whenever the number of ships in the plan falls below the Navy's requirements. I offer my thanks to Senator McCain and the other members of the Seapower Subcommittee for their diligence in the subcommittee's work this year. We have a good bill before the Senate, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. REED. Madam President, first let me thank Chairman Baucus for his very kind words, but also salute the President of the United States for his wisdom in announcing that he intends to appoint the Senator from Montana to be our next ambassador to the People's Republic of China. I can't think of anyone whose integrity, intelligence, commitment to the Nation, and patriotism would so well serve and be so beneficial to this country as continuing in his public efforts after his days in the Senate in the embassy in Beijing. I also thank the chairman because he has been an articulate and effective advocate for unemployment compensation benefits for hard- working Americans who are without work through no fault of their own. This economy has suffered a drastic contraction, beginning in 2007, 2008, and 2009. We are seeing some improvements. During this period, the chairman has been the key actor, the key force driving for extended benefits. Chairman Baucus has been the driving force as well in the context of trying to reform the program. He has implemented efforts such as work sharing, a proposal I brought to him, that is a smart way to do business. It basically allows a company to retain their workers for part of the week and let them collect benefits for the rest of the week, so they keep the workforce together. In Rhode Island, it has been extremely beneficial. It is now a nationwide program because of Chairman Baucus. He is working very hard--as he indicated, we are working together--to ensure that we do not see this cliff where 1.3 million Americans lose their benefits on December 28. Yesterday, I came to the floor to discuss some of the economics behind the logic of extending these benefits. I believe the extensive amount of economic research supports the very commonsense notion that I think the vast majority of our colleagues share: That Americans want to work. They are in an environment, however, where jobs are scarce. There are two workers for every job, and in some parts of the country that ratio is even much worse. However, I hear other colleagues say: That might be true, but we have to fix this program because we have abuse and we have fraud. The chairman, in his efforts, has always demonstrated that we are committed to rooting out any type of fraud or abuse. In 2012, for example, we strengthened the requirement that one has to search for work to qualify for unemployment compensation. We also improved program integrity by having beneficiaries show up more frequently for in-person assessments to help them find a job quicker and ensure they receive the right benefit amount based on their past work history. So we want the program to be efficient. We do not want the program to be subject to abuse. That means that more people can benefit correctly and not abuse the system. So I am sure the chairman and I are quite willing--I know I am, and I know he is too--to work hard if we need reforms. But we can't do that in 10 days. We can't do that. We need some time. So I have joined together with Senator Heller to suggest a 3-month extension. That will allow us--and this is a bipartisan effort, and I thank the Senator from Nevada--to keep people from falling off the edge, literally. The average benefit in Rhode Island is about $350 a week. There are very few people who are going to give up a job to collect about $350 a week. By the way, that money is going right from the check to the local grocery store, to pay for heat or to pay for rent. That is why CBO has estimated that if we don't extend unemployment benefits, we will see a situation in which we lose approximately 200,000 jobs next year which we could have otherwise had, and that we will see our economic GDP growth shrink by about 0.2 percent, because the demand generated by unemployment checks going out in the mail will be lost. It is one of those programs that provides about $1.70, $1.60, for every dollar we invest. So this is about good economics, not just, as Senator Baucus said so eloquently, about our commitment to something beyond ourselves, to the welfare and the good faith of our neighbors in the spirit of Christmas, the true spirit of this holiday. The other thing, too, is if we look at this argument: Well, we are not going to extend the program because of abuse--we can look at a lot of programs; we can look at the crop insurance program, for example. I don't hear many people saying: Oh, let's cut out that crop insurance program because of abuse. Just recently, this year, the Department of Justice prosecuted a very large, significant case of widespread tobacco crop fraud spanning 6 years. A Federal district judge brought to justice an insurance agent and a farmer. Prison time was ordered, more than $8 million of restitution had to be paid, but no one is standing up and saying: Let's cut crop insurance because of this case. Let's get realistic. We need to extend these benefits, and we need to do it promptly because the 28th is just upon us. Shortly, I will make a unanimous consent request, but before that, I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Stabenow. Then, I ask that at 2:30, if she could yield the floor back to me so that I may make my request. With that, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, student loan debt continues to climb. According to an analysis by the Institute for College Access, average student loan debt has increased by 6 percent each year since 2008. In 2012, over 70 percent of college graduates had debt, owing an average of $29,400. This is a growing drag on our economy. In this summer's National Association of Realtors survey, 49 percent of the respondents identified student loan debt as a huge obstacle to home ownership--more than those who identified having enough money for a down payment or having enough confidence in their job security. It is clear that the more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt has serious implications for the broader economy. We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. Default rates are on the rise. 13.4 percent of borrowers entering repayment in 2009 defaulted within three years. The rate jumped to 14.7 percent for borrowers entering repayment in 2010. We cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and student borrowing. States are critical partners in making college accessible and affordable. However, state support for higher education has declined in recent years, contributing to rising tuition costs at public colleges and universities. According to the latest State Higher Education Finance report published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers, state spending per full-time equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011. In the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success, PASS, Act that I am introducing today, we will re-establish a robust, Federal- State partnership for college affordability and student success. I long worked to fund the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program, an initiative that engaged the states in matching federal funds to provide need-based grants to students. LEAP was modest in scale. The legislation I am introducing today calls for a more ambitious and comprehensive Federal-State partnership for higher education. The PASS Act will authorize $1 billion for a State formula grant program. In order to participate, states must make a commitment to maintain their investment in higher education and must have a comprehensive plan for higher education with measurable goals for access, affordability, and student outcomes. At least 70 percent of the funding must be dedicated to need-based student financial aid. States also have the option of awarding grants to colleges and universities or partnerships between institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations to improve student outcomes, including enrollment, completion, and employment, and to develop innovative methods for reducing college costs. I am pleased to have the support of the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and U.S PIRG in advancing this legislation. Institutions also have a critical role to play in curbing student loan debt. To ensure that institutions have more skin in the game, so they provide a better and more affordable education to students, which will in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults, I am proud to be introducing the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin and Warren. The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have 25 percent or more of their students borrow would be included in risk sharing based on their cohort default rate. Risk-sharing requirements would kick in when default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institutional default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment. The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions, provided that they are making progress in their student loan management plans. The risk-sharing payments will be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant program. With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. We need all stakeholders in the system to do their part. With the PASS Act and the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for states and institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and look forward to working with them to include these and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 259, S. 1797, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Texas coming here, engaging, and I appreciate the fact that he is making a point. But I am trying to make a point which I think is very compelling. Within a few days--December 28--1.3 million Americans will lose their extended Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It will be a tremendous trauma to those families, and it will be a huge impact for our economy going forward. I have renewed my request for a full 1-year extension, and it has been objected to. I recognize that. But, I believe it is urgent we extend unemployment insurance benefits. I also have been working closely with my Republican colleague, Senator Heller, on a bipartisan basis to introduce a bill to extend these benefits for 3 months, giving us the opportunity to go and take a more deliberate and careful review of the program and also to provide for a mechanism to extend the benefits for a full year. I am very pleased we are beginning to build bipartisan support for this initiative for at least 3 months. It does reflect the fact that my colleagues from all across the country are recognizing the huge impact of this loss of benefits. This is not a problem that is restricted to a particular area of the country. Nevada has the highest rate in terms of unemployment numbers. Rhode Island trails behind, but not by much. We are at over 9 percent. But you have States with high unemployment throughout the country: Michigan at 9 percent, Illinois at 8.9 percent, Kentucky at 8.4 percent, Georgia at 8.1 percent, Arizona at 8.2 percent. These are States that have significant issues with respect to unemployment and need the continuation of this program to protect their families and also to provide stimulus for their local economies. We have at this point in many of these places two unemployed workers for every available job. So this is not just a question of: ``The jobs are there. Just go get it.'' The job is not there. Also, we recognize-- I think we all recognize--the skill sets that are increasingly in demand are some of the skill sets that mature workers--people who have been working for 20 years, who have been every day of their lives going to the office or going to the mill or going to the plant are now competing with 20-year-olds who have sophisticated information technology skills and other skills in a climate where manufacturing is becoming sophisticated. Every sort of enterprise seems to be much more sophisticated and demanding a higher level of skills than years ago. So this is a very difficult time for workers out of a job, and I believe in this difficult period of time we need to extend these benefits. There is extensive research on unemployment insurance and the labor markets that also supports the point that people who are on unemployment insurance want to go back to work. This is a very sort of pragmatic insight. In Rhode Island, for example, the average benefit is $354 a week. For most workers, that is a fraction of what they were gaining in their job. They would love to be called back to work. They would love to find a job that fits their skills that is close to the pay they had or maybe less. But no one is getting this help and socking away a lot of money on their UI benefits. Indeed, a recent report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers looks at the economic tradeoffs that are being faced. In their words: In choosing the optimal unemployment insurance policy, policymakers must weigh competing costs and benefits. On the one hand, some argue that extending benefits may dull the incentives for unemployed workers to exert effort to search for another job, leading to increased unemployment--the so- called ``moral hazard'' effect. But on the other hand, providing benefits gives families income that can in the limit keep them from poverty but more generally can help them to finance a longer job search that might ultimately result in a job better matched with their talents, resulting in higher overall labor market productivity. . . . These are important aspects that have to be considered. I think the consensus of many in Congress is that this program is not only necessary and essential, but it also does not significantly inhibit the willingness, the ability, the desire of people to get back to work. Raj Chetty is a noted economist who studies these issues. He concludes: Nearly a dozen economic studies have analyzed this question by comparing unemployment rates in states that have extended unemployment benefits with those in states that do not . . . . These studies have uniformly found that a 10-week extension in unemployment benefits raises the average amount of time people spend out of work by at most one week. This simple, unassailable finding implies that policy makers can extend unemployment benefits to provide assistance to those out of work without substantially increasing unemployment rates. That is the conclusion of a very well respected economist who has been looking at that issue for several years. Once again, from the Council of Economic Advisers' report: Finally, while economists have found only small disincentive effects of UI extensions, recent research shows that the effect of UI on job search behavior is even smaller in recessions as the moral hazard effect shrinks when jobs are scarce. Let's get back to common sense. There are roughly two workers for every job. The benefits UI beneficiaries receive are a fraction of what they would get in the workplace. They want to get back into the workplace. The jobs are just not there. Frankly, we have not done enough, I would suggest, to put those jobs in place. We have to do more. But in the interim, we have to make sure these families have some benefits and some protection. I am quite willing to work with my colleagues if there are changes that should be made, could be made. But we are facing this deadline. Unless we move--and I am disappointed we have not moved today--1.3 million people on December 28 lose their benefits. The checks will cease going out the following week, and our economy will take a hit next year of 200,000 jobs, about a 0.2-percent growth shrinkage in GDP. We can avoid that by moving today or moving tomorrow, certainly moving as soon as we get back, to make sure these benefits are in place. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I will not amend the request. I respect the Senator's point, but I will not amend the request. I am here simply to ask for the unanimous consent as I presented it.

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED. I come again to the floor to remind my colleagues that in 11 days 1.3 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. With the goal of providing certainty to these families that they will continue to have access to this vital lifeline, I and my colleague from Nevada, Senator Heller, are introducing a bill that would extend unemployment insurance compensation benefits for 3 months. I hope this sensible and bipartisan approach will provide a path forward to extending the program through 2014, which will give families and our economy more time to recover. In many parts of the country, recovery is just getting underway. My own State of Rhode Island has 9.2 percent unemployment. There are States throughout the country that have over 8 percent unemployment. There are some States that are doing well and we are very pleased they are. But for the millions of people who are still looking for work, they need this help. This program is designed so workers continue to look for work while they receive very modest compensation. In my State the average is about $354 a week. That is not the kind of money that is going to induce someone to simply sit back and collect. It is going to provide some support for them to just put food on the table. This safety net is not only there for them, it is for everyone, as 23.9 million Americans have received these Federal benefits since the start of the program in 2008. Some, thankfully, have found work and returned to work. But all of them, in a very critical time, received assistance and support. They only qualified for the support because they worked. This is a program that is based on one fundamental principle--they have worked long enough to qualify for these benefits. As a result, I think we have to go ahead, follow through, and not leave 1.3 million people, on December 28, literally with nothing, in many cases. As we look by household, the number of Americans this program has helped rises to about 69 million people, not only the workers but their families, sons, daughters, and spouses. In fact, it includes about 17 million children who would not have received support without the benefits provided by this program. In terms of income, over 40 percent of those households new to receiving UI in 2012 had household income between $30,000 and $75,000. That is an important point to make. These are working families. These are people who were enjoying a reasonably good living and suddenly, because of many changes, globalization, downsizing, you name it, they are without a job in a very difficult job market. They went from people with good, solid, middle-class jobs to desperately looking for work. At least this program gave them some support as they made that great effort to look for work. This program has been and continues to be a crucial benefit to millions of American households all over the country and of nearly every conceivable demographic background. That is why it is such a significant part of our recovery too. Its expiration will hurt families. It has been estimated that if we do not extend this program over the next year, we will lose 200,000 jobs. And the logic of this program is very compelling. People who receive these benefits, people who used to make $50,000 a year, for example--and many of them did--they are not going to go ahead, turn around, take these benefits and just sort of squirrel them away or go off on a vacation. This is about paying the rent and paying for fuel in a cold winter or a hot summer in the South and Southwest. It is about making sure their children get a little something. Again, about 17 million children have benefited over the last several years--since 2008--from this program. This is absolutely critical. It is critical to our economy. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the economically smart thing to do. It has been estimated that without the extension of unemployment insurance, we will lose .2 percent of GDP growth this year, and this is at a time when we all very sincerely profess that our No. 1 job is jobs--getting people back to work and growing the economy. And if we grow the economy, that has many beneficial effects. Not only does it lower the number of people who need this type of assistance, but as a result of that and other activities, it begins to lower our deficit. For so many reasons, both economic and central to our purpose as a government--which is when people who have worked hard run into a situation where they lose their employment through no fault of their own, this is something that is there for them, and I hope we can move forward on it. I am so pleased Senator Heller has stepped up and has joined me, and I will join him, in urging all my colleagues to give us the opportunity not only to bring this legislation up but for at least 3 months to extend it so we can look longer term. Some of my colleagues have raised some very interesting points about how perhaps there are reforms necessary for the program. Well, in the context of a program that expires on December 28, it is hard to take the legislative time and insight to develop reforms that will work for everyone. But if we can extend this for at least 3 months, we will have that opportunity. Mr. President, again, I will return. This is not the last time I will speak on this point. But I did want to come back and remind people that this program is central to so many families. It is an important part of continuing our economic expansion, and it is particularly difficult at this time of year when 1.3 million Americans in this holiday season are facing a cutoff of benefits that to many of them are the difference between paying the rent, paying the mortgage, and keeping the kids in their sports programs or doing those things families in America need to do. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, in 12 days, unemployment insurance will expire for 1.3 million Americans. This will impact virtually every State. Over the course of the next year, it will set back millions of hard-working families, slow down job growth, and slow our economic recovery. Today I filed three amendments to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement Act. The amendments would extend UI for 1 month, 3 months, or a year respectively. While I believe the best policy is to extend unemployment insurance for 1 year in order to keep our economic recovery moving forward, I am willing to work with my colleagues who object to extending it for the full year to find a path forward. What we must, I think, provide is at least a message to those people that they will not see their benefits eliminated on December 28, and that we will, in fact, be working to make sure that this protection is in place for families all cross this country. Over the next several days I will be coming to the floor seeking consent and urging my colleagues to extend unemployment insurance. The expiration of unemployment insurance will be devastating to families across the entire Nation who rely on this as the last remaining source of support, in many cases for people who have worked hard for many years and because of this economy have lost their jobs. This is a stressful time. My home State of Rhode Island has an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent. We have been struggling since 2008 and 2009. This is very difficult for people. This difficulty will be particularly hard to bear as we celebrate the holidays--at a time when people should be able to consider and count their blessings--they will instead be looking ahead a few days afterward to the loss of valuable, irreplaceable income. It is also a devastating blow to our local businesses and economy. Extending UI is not only doing the right thing for American families, this is doing the right and smart thing for the American economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we fail to extend unemployment insurance, we will lose 200,000 jobs--at a time when our major priority should be getting as many jobs as we can--and will slow economic growth by about .2 percent GDP. This is not only the right thing to do in terms of the families of America, it is the smart and right thing to do for our economy. There is a compelling, economic rationale to provide these extended unemployment insurance benefits. Mark Zandi, a noted economist, estimates that for every $1 we put into the UI Program we get $1.55 in return of economic activity. It makes sense. People who are living without their income from employment, when they take this money, they go to the store, they put food on the table, they pay rent. They pay for heat in the Northeast where the President pro tempore resides. They are not stashing it away. In some cases, they are putting it right back into the economy. So this is a wise, economic policy, as well as a humane and decent policy. Now is not the time to let this program expire for the individuals or for the economy. We have to extend UI immediately. December 28 is the day it stops; it is a cliff. People are off the program. Then, throughout the year, as people exhaust their State benefits at 26 weeks, they fall off because there is no Unemployment Insurance Program. This is an economy where we are just beginning to see some recovery. Last month's numbers suggested about a 200,000-job gain. That was good, but hidden in those statistics was increasing evidence that long-term unemployment is increasing. Those people who haven't found jobs quickly are not finding jobs very well at all. That trend is continuing and that is another reason we need the long- term benefits that are provided by the Federal program. I am going to do my best to try to bring people together to recognize that this is an issue that is about American workers. People don't get unemployment insurance unless they have worked. It is about American families, because it is so necessary to support these families, and it is about States all across this country. Rhode Island has a 9.2-percent unemployment record. Nevada is the highest with 9.3 percent. We can look at States--North, South, East, West--scattered across this country that have unemployment rates over 8 percent that need this program for their residents. I hope we can come together, work together, and get this done. I urge, again, in the next few days that we all stop and think about our obligations, not only to the families of America but to keeping the momentum of economic growth moving forward. I would particularly ask those colleagues who are representing States with unemployment rates that are above the national average--and the national average is 7 percent--to think very hard about what they are going to tell many of their constituents on December 28 when they have lost their benefits. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first of all, I think it is appropriate to make some comments. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota being here and making his point. But we are at a juncture that within 2 weeks 1.3 million Americans will lose their Federal unemployment compensation insurance. It will be a shock to them economically and particularly since it will be just a few days after the Christmas holiday. My legislation is very simple. I am seeking to extend for an additional year the unemployment compensation program that has been in place for several years. That will allow 1.3 million Americans to have some support as they face a very difficult economy. We have asked, as Democrats, that this UI proposal be part of the budget negotiation. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have made the same request. It appears that will not be the case. So we have to seek a stand-alone legislative vehicle. That is why I proposed the legislation as I have done today. What we were trying to do, with the request that was just objected to, and what we have to do within 2 weeks is pass this legislation--so the upcoming expiration does not allow us the time for the procedural process of committee deliberation and markup, et cetera. What we have to do is try to avoid a huge economic shock to 1.3 million Americans immediately. There will be more after that. But as of December 28, if you are on unemployment insurance, Federal unemployment insurance, you lose it. In my State, that is 4,900 people celebrating New Year's Day by losing their Federal unemployment insurance benefits; for families who are struggling just to keep their heads above water in a very difficult economy--who have seen their jobs disappear, who after years of dedicated work find themselves now looking at very difficult circumstances for employment, in my home State particularly, but not my home State alone--this is a very difficult burden to bear. So we have to act. That is why we are here this evening, to ask for immediate consideration of my legislation to extend unemployment insurance, not further review, but immediate consideration. I think it is important to point out that the average weekly benefit is about $300 per week. This is not a program that people are using to enrich themselves by any means. This is basically keeping the heat on, keeping some food on the table, maybe keeping the rent paid. Also, this is a program that people only qualify for after working and establishing a work history. So for all of these reasons, we are not talking about some lavish benefit that is a windfall to Americans. This is something that can keep families together. That is why I think we have to be willing, beginning this evening, to get this program extended through next year at least. There is another aspect to this too. Unemployment insurance is one of the best countercyclical economic programs we have when it comes to Federal fiscal policy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that with the expiration of UI, if we do not act, it will cost our economy next year 200,000 jobs. It will cost us jobs if we do not act. It will slow economic growth by about .2 percent is their estimate. So not only is this sensible, in fact the decent thing to do for millions of families, it is the smart thing to do for our economy. Because if we do not do it, we are literally seeing, under very rational estimates, 200,000 jobs disappear. What is the one thing everybody claims we need to do in this country right now? Put more people back to work. This extension has been scored at about $26 billion for the year. Traditionally, we have treated unemployment insurance as an emergency expenditure. We have not offset it. That tradition has been abandoned recently and we have had to come up with offsets. But there are offsets. There are tax loopholes that should be closed. There are provisions that encourage companies to move jobs overseas that we can close and pay for this. There are other provisions that would stop subsidizing significant multimillion dollar corporate benefits so American families can have a chance. These loopholes we have talked about--and many of my colleagues talked about--they should be closed anyway. But if it helps pay for unemployment insurance, that is not only good, that is something that would be a very positive step forward. We need to extend these benefits not only for the individual families but for the overall economy. We have to start immediately. We are running out of time. We have just 2 weeks. Nothing is more important than getting people back to work. As I said, if we do not do this, we are going to see 200,000 jobs that are going to be forgone in the next year. So this is about jobs, as well as it is about keeping families together and keeping them able to provide for their basic needs. It is progrowth. It is smart. I hope we can come together and do it. I hope again--I appreciate certainly the objection of the Senator from North Dakota. But I hope we can find a way to not object but to move forward together. The benefits cut across party lines. If you look at the States that are suffering the most--as we all know, the unemployment compensation program is a tiered program. It depends upon the level of unemployment in our States. But if you look at the States that are suffering the most, and unfortunately I am going to have to say Rhode Island is one of them. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate, 9.3. We are right behind them, 9.2 percent. It has been 5 long years of unacceptable and elevated unemployment. It has come down from above 10 percent, but it is still much too high. But this is not a regional phenomenon. Illinois, 8.9 percent unemployment; Mississippi, 8.5 percent unemployment; Kentucky, 8.4 percent unemployment; North Carolina, 8 percent unemployment; Georgia, 8.1 percent unemployment; Arizona, 8.2 percent unemployment. These are tough numbers. It is not concentrated in one place; it is across this entire country. This is not a red issue or a blue issue. This is an American issue for workers who have worked and now cannot find jobs and need support. There is something else that is important to mention; that is, we have seen some progress on the jobs front. The last report showed we actually grew last month, 203,000 jobs. That is the good news. The bad news is despite this improvement, long-term unemployment remains high. More than 4 million workers, 37 percent of those unemployed, were jobless for 27 weeks or longer in November. So what we are seeing is some short-term movement, but the longer term unemployment, the ones who qualify for the Federal benefits, they are still finding it virtually--very difficult, if not impossible, to find work. That is exactly what this Federal program is designed to fix. Those long-term unemployed who are in an environment, in a State where the economy is not working as well as some other States. There are some States that are doing exceptionally well. I am glad for them. But there are more, as I said before, who are experiencing unacceptably high unemployment rates. This program started to take shape in its most recent incarnation in June 2008, when President George W. Bush signed the program into law. When he did it, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent and the average duration of unemployment was 17.1 weeks. So we are looking now at a situation that nationally and in many States is much higher than when we initiated this program back in 2008. Now is not the time to stop, and in order to get this done, we have to move expeditiously. There is not time for elaborate hearings. There is not time for conferences with the House. The House is proposing to leave this Friday. We have to move immediately. Today, our national unemployment rate is 7 percent. The duration of unemployment is 37.2 weeks. That is 7 percent compared to 5.6 and 37.2 weeks compared to 17.1 weeks. We still need this program to help the families of this Nation. We can't end it now. We have to move forward, particularly during this holiday season. The reality--and finally to make this point--is that people will be looking at a new year coming with the knowledge that what little benefit they are getting as they search for work--an average of $300 a week--is gone. That is a tough reality, to look at your family on New Year's Day and understand that you don't have those resources. So we have to act, and I hope we can. With that, I yield the floor for my colleague and his comments.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I certainly respect my colleague from North Dakota for stating his principled position. I think we can both agree on one thing: We have to start moving very quickly because this reality is moving very rapidly on 1.3 million Americans. I hope we can move forward. I yield the floor.