Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 13, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``We the People: Fulfilling the Promise of Open Government Five Years After The OPEN Government Act.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``VA Claims Process--Review of VA's Transformation Efforts.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I believe I still have the time. Let me make one point. This is a complicated rule that has tried to balance various equities--environmental protection, protecting the navigable waters of the United States, recognizing small farms or farms where in no way their oil could reach down to where it should be exempt. Here, on the other side, is an amendment that is very broad, open ended--no funds, all farms. I think in this context, I would urge my colleagues to resist the amendment. I think the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to speak today in opposition to the Cruz amendment, which would prohibit any funding in the continuing resolution from being used to carry out the goals of the Affordable Care Act. The broad scope of this amendment clearly indicates that anything anticipated under the Affordable Care Act would be subject to defunding, and that is a broad category of activities. In fact, we already have seen the Affordable Care Act produce demonstrable positive results in my State of Rhode Island, and those results could be eliminated or reversed. For example, because of the Affordable Care Act, there are protections in place today for children with preexisting conditions to ensure they are no longer denied coverage. There are over 15,000 children who have a preexisting condition who could have been dropped from insurance coverage prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Their parents and other adults--approximately 200,000 Rhode Island adults also living with preexisting conditions--will gain protection from being dropped from coverage beginning in January. We began with children, and now we are expanding it to adults. If we don't do that, then we are going to have a whole category, a huge segment of my population who may lose access to insurance, and the inevitable result will be that they will go to expensive emergency rooms, and they will cost all of us more money. Rather than saving money and dealing with the deficit in a responsible way, this will just add to our deficit problems and deny people health care. The law, the Affordable Care Act, included new tax breaks for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. Small businesses have been able to access a tax credit of up to 35 percent of their health care costs every year since 2010. Beginning in 2014, these businesses may receive a tax credit of up to 50 percent of their health care costs for any 2-year period. Again this support under the Affordable Care Act could be jeopardized or eliminated under the proposed amendment. Also in jeopardy are discounts on covered brandname and generic prescription drugs for seniors who have reached the prescription drug coverage gap known as the famous or infamous doughnut hole. Already in Rhode Island, seniors have saved--individual senior citizens of Rhode Island have saved $20.5 million as a result of these discounts since the law was enacted. These discounts will continue until the coverage gap--the doughnut hole--is eliminated in 2020. The Cruz amendment will stop that. Essentially we are telling seniors go back to the time of the doughnut hole, more money out of your pocket at a time when you can afford less and less for prescription drugs. Many of my colleagues on the Republican side say they support these aspects of the Affordable Care Act, yet this amendment would effectively do away with them or cast so much doubt or confusion that they would not be effectively implemented. We have to, I think, continue to effectively implement the Affordable Care Act, not only in terms of providing access to quality care for all of our citizens but because within the Affordable Care Act were significant efforts to improve health care efficiencies. Indeed, through these reforms, we were able to extend the Medicare Program by, I believe, 8 years, to 2024, in terms of our funding models. All of that would be jeopardized by this amendment. There are some other examples, too. For example, the Affordable Care Act would reauthorize funding to help immunize uninsured and underinsured children and adults. Every year my State of Rhode Island receives $3 million to immunize this population. Funding for immunizations is critical for the child and the family, but it also benefits all of us, because if you can immunize 75 to 95 percent of the population, immunologists and health specialists will tell us we are all protected through something that is technically known as herd immunity. It makes sense, if you have a sufficient number of people who are vaccinated against the disease, when an outbreak occurs the likelihood of it spreading is diminished dramatically. This is another example of a public health initiative under the Affordable Care Act, which, if it is repealed or defunded, will leave us all vulnerable to diseases. That is not a benefit, that is a detriment to all of us. We have to, again, I think, consider other aspects of the Affordable Care Act. One other aspect I wish to mention is the critical area of health care workforce programs, programs that help train doctors and nurses. Many of these programs are funded in the continuing resolution and they, too, would be either eliminated or so uncertain as to be unreliable for the institutions. In my home State, colleges and universities, such as at the University of Rhode Island, are using these programs to help train a new generation of health care professionals, not just physicians but physician's assistants and nurse-practitioners. Indeed, what we are seeing, because of the Affordable Care Act, is a refocus to more emphasis on family practitioners, primary care that is less expensive and more effective over the long term in terms of prevention--all that would be jeopardized under this proposed amendment. There are countless other examples of not only interfering with health care access for a vast number of Americans, but actually setting back our efforts to reduce the deficit and to sustain programs such as Medicare. The burden might be particularly felt by seniors because one of the things that was most compelling in the debate about the Affordable Care Act was closing this doughnut hole. Seniors believe we have taken a positive step to do that. This would be an about-face for the seniors of America, causing them to see more and more costs in their limited budgets. These are not the messages we want to give to seniors or families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if we are still on the Inhofe amendment, is there still an opportunity to speak on the amendment before a vote is called or is the Senator asking for a vote immediately?

Mr. REED. Is the Senator asking for a vote immediately or is there still an opportunity to speak?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe is proposing a very sweeping amendment that would affect a rule the EPA has developed over the normal rulemaking process, with notice and comments over many, many, many months. It is scheduled to go into effect in May of this year. The amendment the Senator is offering, as I understand it, exempts all farms from this EPA oilspill regulation. Again, this rule is designed to prevent or significantly prevent the pollution of navigable waters by oilspills coming from agricultural operations. One of the issues here is the definition of what appropriate farm should be exempt. As I understand the amendment, it is all farms. That includes large agribusinesses that have the capability not only of mitigating these hazards but also the resources to do so and, collectively, would contribute to environmental quality. I know the agricultural community is concerned. And I know also this the type of very complicated legislation that is best resolved at the authorization level. The Senator from Oklahoma, I think, has already indicated there are bills pending, and these bills are much more finely attuned in nuance to address more specifically the problem rather than a total effective preemption from the rule for all farms. So I would urge very strenuously that--and I know the intentions of the Senator from Oklahoma are to assist the agricultural community, but I do not think this is the place or the time, as we try very seriously to get a bill through by the end of the week, essentially, that will keep the government operating, to decide on these complicated authorization issues, effectively cutting out completely a very serious and detailed rulemaking process that the EPA has undertaken. So I will urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to resist the amendment.

Mr. REED. I have the amendment, yes.

Mr. REED. I believe the Senator is absolutely correct. There is no time extension. One could argue that as this CR runs out maybe this provision would run out. But the intent of the bill is clearly that there is no money to be expended for any implementation against any farm.

Mr. REED. That is the language of the bill.

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

Mr. REED. Well, I thank the Senator for bringing that to my attention because one point I would make--and I think Senator Inhofe does want to engage also--but one point I would make is that in this EPA rulemaking process there is a requirement to evaluate the cost and benefits with respect to the rule. In that sense, many of these issues have been addressed, and they have been done so in a very careful way. Two, it has been done by listening to--in fact, requiring legally to take the opinions, the comments of many people, stakeholders from all sides. And then, frankly, the other cost and the traditional cost to protest a rule is not to legislatively eliminate it, particularly in an appropriations bill, but to contest the rule in court based upon the facts.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Illinois for a very thoughtful statement about the pending appropriations bill, particularly with respect to the funding of the Department of Defense. I wish to spend a moment to talk about another looming issue that is beyond appropriations but is rapidly approaching. In June of last year, as we commemorated the 40th anniversary of legislation to establish the Pell Grant Program, we narrowly averted a doubling of the interest rate on need-based student loans. Back in January of 2012, Congressman Courtney and I introduced legislation to permanently extend the 3.4-percent interest rate that has helped make college loans more affordable for millions of students across the country. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle instead voted for budgets that effectively called for the doubling of the rate. They did this at a time when students are struggling--and I will point out some of the difficulties we face--at a time when college costs are increasing and at a time when college is becoming more and more essential for obtaining any type of long-term, stable employment and ability to contribute to the continued economic growth of the country. It took thousands of calls and letters and rallies from students and parents across the country and President Obama himself getting involved in this issue to bring everyone to the table to negotiate. However, we were only able to get a temporary, short-term fix. Essentially, we were able to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent but only until July 1 of this year. Interest rates will again double then on these need-based loans unless we act. One of the other ironies, of course, is that even at 3.4 percent, that is a substantial interest payment at a time when Federal fund rates are closer to 1 percent and when large financial institutions can borrow at these very low rates, et cetera. So given that factor also, it is essential we once again respond, prior to July 1, to the anticipated doubling of the student loan rate. Now is the time to develop not just a short-term solution but a long- term solution to this growing burden of student loan debt, the rising cost of college, and the need to improve higher education outcomes so students complete their degrees and get the full benefit of their investment in education and we get the benefit as a society and as an economy of their education. Everyone agrees college costs are too high and are climbing higher. There has to be real reform by higher education in terms of the way they deliver services. They cannot continue to pass on increased costs. If that continues to happen, families will be priced out of a college education, even with our grants and loans; so we have to do something. Student loan debt is the next big financial crisis we are facing. Even if we act now, we are looking at some very sobering statistics about the growth of student loan debt already. That should prompt, again, action now to prevent the doubling of the interest rate and longer term action to control the costs of higher education and the ability of families to respond to those costs. Student loan debt continued to rise throughout the recession. In fact, one of the ironies of the recession is people can't find jobs; they are going back to college to get more training and sometimes they are going back to college because that is what they can do. So the irony, of course, is we are adding to the student debt. In fact, today, student loan debt is the second largest outstanding balance after mortgage debt. It eclipses credit card debt. It is the second largest outstanding balance in our economy behind mortgage debt. Borrowers are struggling under that debt. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently reported that 17 percent of student loan borrowers are more than 90 days past due on their payments--a large increase from under 10 percent in 2004. So in roughly a decade, we have seen an increasing amount of students unable to shoulder the burden of their debt. Even worse, if we consider that 44 percent of student loan borrowers are not in repayment--these are people who statutorily don't have to start paying--the effective delinquency rate rises to more than 30 percent. That is stunning. This is affecting also the lives of these young people at a time when they are beginning to establish or are hoping to establish households. A recent Pew Research Center survey illustrates what is happening. As the percentage of young adult households with student loan debt climbed from 34 percent in 2007 to 40 percent in 2010--again, a huge increase in debt--the share of younger households owning their home has declined sharply from 40 percent in 2007 to 34 percent in 2011. Home ownership, which is one of but not the only measure of the American dream, is also one of the strongest supports of the American economy, but it is rapidly being priced out of the reach of young students because of their student debt. They literally can't qualify for mortgages. Car ownership shows a similar trend. In 2007, 73 percent of households headed by young adults owned or leased at least one vehicle. By 2011, that figure dropped to 66 percent. Students are caught literally between a rock and a hard place. Huge financial debts for their college education prevent them from buying homes, buying cars, and prevent this economy from growing as it has in the past because of new households, young households coming into the marketplace, buying homes and buying cars and starting families. We can't do away with education. It is more important each day in a global economy. We have to deal with this issue of rising costs. The cost of attending college has increased by more than 550 percent since 1985. Let me repeat that: 550 percent. That is rising faster than gasoline, health care, and other consumer items. It is skyrocketing. Again, the universities, the colleges, education leaders at every level--Federal, State, and local--have to begin to respond to this rising cost of education. But keeping student loans affordable and interest rates low is one part of the solution, particularly this immediate crisis facing us by July 1. The Federal Government should price student loans based on our actual costs of operating the student loan programs. We should set the student loan interest rates in a way that minimizes the cost for students while covering most of the cost for the taxpayer. The Federal Government provides student loans to increase the number of Americans who can obtain college degrees. We do not and should not run these programs to generate revenue. They should be to increase the capital--the human capital--of our country. I plan to introduce legislation to set student loan interest rates based on the principles of keeping costs low for both students and taxpayers. Providing more grant aid through Pell grants and other programs is another way to tackle these college costs. However, if college costs continue to rise at the current rate, students relying on the Pell grant will continue to lose ground. We need States and institutions to partner with us to make college affordable. Again, it has to be a cooperative effort. With respect to the Pell grant, I have talked about the loans, but the Pell grant is just an outright grant of funds to the student without the need to repay. It was for a long time the backbone of our Federal support to students in college and families trying to put their children through college. In 1976 the Pell grant maximum was $1,400. That was enough to cover 72 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. In fact, in those good old days, with a Pell grant and a summer job and a little help, you were usually able to emerge from college after 4 years without a huge debt, and you could start your family and buy your car at a younger age. In 2010 the maximum Pell grant was increased to $5,550, but that is only enough to cover 34 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. In my State, we have been particularly hard hit by this recession and economic downturn, and students and families are feeling this pressure of increased tuition and higher fees at schools and colleges acutely. They need these resources, and we have to ensure that they get these resources. As I indicated, I am planning to introduce legislation to strengthen our higher education system and student aid programs by reestablishing a strong Federal-university-State partnership for college access and affordability and by requiring institutions to assume more of the risk in the student loan programs and to do so in a way that I think will vindicate our best principles and our soundest economic rationale. I look forward to working with Chairman Harkin. He has been a leader on these issues for so many years, both as the chairman of the HELP Committee and chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee. We want to start by preventing, obviously, the doubling of student loans by July 1. That is step 1, but it cannot be the last step. Mr. President, with that, I yield floor.

Mr. REED. Now is the time? Well, in that case, let me go ahead and speak.

Mr. REED. I would like to, at the appropriate moment, be recognized to speak, respectfully, against the Senator's amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act along with Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Klobuchar, Franken, Warren, and Cowan. In December 1989, Liberia became engulfed in a devastating 7-year civil war, which killed over 150,000 people, displaced more than half the population, and destroyed the country's infrastructure. Thousands of Liberians who were forced from their homes sought refuge in the United States and in 1991, were granted Temporary Protected Status, TPS. Since that time, the status of many of these refugees, as well as many of those who fled to the United States during Liberia's second civil war, 1999-2003, has been extended through renewals of both TPS and Deferred Enforced Departure, DED. America is now home to these law-abiding and tax-paying Liberians. They came here to escape violence and are strengthening our communities. Many now have children of their own who are U.S. citizens, some of whom serve in the U.S. military. They are here legally, and they continue to work hard and play by the rules. We are currently less than 20 days away from the expiration of DED on March 31, 2013. In the short term, I have been joined by several colleagues in urging the Administration to extend DED so Liberians who have lived here legally do not face deportation. The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, which I have introduced every Congress since 1999, offers a more long-term solution. It seeks to provide a path to citizenship for qualifying Liberian refugees. After decades of perennial uncertainty about whether they will be able to stay in their communities or whether their families will be split up, this bill would give eligible Liberians the opportunity to apply for legal permanent residency, and begin the process of finally becoming citizens. Currently, a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues is working towards a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I look forward to working with them and others to include the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in immigration reform. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Klobuchar, Franken, Warren, and Cowan for cosponsoring this bill and urge our colleagues to join us in taking the next steps to finally provide a path to citizenship for qualifying Liberians.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act along with Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Klobuchar, Franken, Warren, and Cowan. In December 1989, Liberia became engulfed in a devastating 7-year civil war, which killed over 150,000 people, displaced more than half the population, and destroyed the country's infrastructure. Thousands of Liberians who were forced from their homes sought refuge in the United States and in 1991, were granted Temporary Protected Status, TPS. Since that time, the status of many of these refugees, as well as many of those who fled to the United States during Liberia's second civil war, 1999-2003, has been extended through renewals of both TPS and Deferred Enforced Departure, DED. America is now home to these law-abiding and tax-paying Liberians. They came here to escape violence and are strengthening our communities. Many now have children of their own who are U.S. citizens, some of whom serve in the U.S. military. They are here legally, and they continue to work hard and play by the rules. We are currently less than 20 days away from the expiration of DED on March 31, 2013. In the short term, I have been joined by several colleagues in urging the Administration to extend DED so Liberians who have lived here legally do not face deportation. The Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, which I have introduced every Congress since 1999, offers a more long-term solution. It seeks to provide a path to citizenship for qualifying Liberian refugees. After decades of perennial uncertainty about whether they will be able to stay in their communities or whether their families will be split up, this bill would give eligible Liberians the opportunity to apply for legal permanent residency, and begin the process of finally becoming citizens. Currently, a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues is working towards a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I look forward to working with them and others to include the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in immigration reform. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Klobuchar, Franken, Warren, and Cowan for cosponsoring this bill and urge our colleagues to join us in taking the next steps to finally provide a path to citizenship for qualifying Liberians.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Family Self- Sufficiency Act, and I am pleased this Congress to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Blunt of Missouri. The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, employment and savings incentive initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: first, it provides access to the resources and training that help participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as additional workforce training or the purchase or maintenance of a car needed for commuting purposes. Our bipartisan legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned properties with project-based assistance. In short, we seek to make the FSS program easier to administer and more effective. First, to streamline the FSS program, our bill would combine two separate FSS programs into one. Today, HUD operates one FSS program for those families served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families served by the Public Housing program. This is the case even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same. Unfortunately, Public Housing Agencies, PHA, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With our bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden. Second, our legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment of a GED, education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to help families get ahead increases the effectiveness of this federal investment. Our legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings. Lastly, our bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality. I thank Senator Blunt for his partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Family Self- Sufficiency Act, and I am pleased this Congress to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Blunt of Missouri. The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, employment and savings incentive initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: first, it provides access to the resources and training that help participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as additional workforce training or the purchase or maintenance of a car needed for commuting purposes. Our bipartisan legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned properties with project-based assistance. In short, we seek to make the FSS program easier to administer and more effective. First, to streamline the FSS program, our bill would combine two separate FSS programs into one. Today, HUD operates one FSS program for those families served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families served by the Public Housing program. This is the case even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same. Unfortunately, Public Housing Agencies, PHA, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With our bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden. Second, our legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment of a GED, education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to help families get ahead increases the effectiveness of this federal investment. Our legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings. Lastly, our bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality. I thank Senator Blunt for his partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to highlight the urgency and importance of addressing sequestration. These imminent cuts will have real impacts on the environment and on thousands of jobs related to infrastructure investment and environmental protection. The reductions required by sequestration will also come on top of other deep cuts these programs have already absorbed over the last 2 years. Even though Interior bill programs make up less than 3 percent of total Federal discretionary spending, we have already seen more than $2 billion in cuts to environmental programs over the past 2 years. If sequestration moves forward, it will mean an additional $1.6 billion in across-the-board cuts to the Interior bill. We have already been forced to take $1 billion out of water infrastructure funding. Under sequestration, EPA's State Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Fund Programs will lose another $130 million. In addition to potential public health impacts, these cuts will mean 7,000 fewer construction jobs at a time we need to put more people to work. These cuts will be made worse by more than $50 million in additional reductions to grants that help States run their environmental agencies, including supporting clean water programs. The consequences will fall squarely on communities such as those in my home State of Rhode Island that are already struggling to keep pace with their infrastructure needs. Just as we cannot place the burden of our Nation's growing financial debt on our children, we cannot place the burden of repairing our failing infrastructure on the next generation also. We have immediate needs that require immediate investment. I am also concerned about cuts to our Nation's land management agencies, including the National Park Service, which is slated for $130 million in cuts. Sequestration will affect all 398 of our national parks, from the largest to the smallest. It means fewer seasonal personnel to assist visitors, which means fewer jobs. It also means fewer visitor services, more facility closures, and less upkeep and maintenance of our Nation's premier public lands. These cuts are obviously bad news for the millions of people who visit our national parks every year, but it is worth pointing out that these cuts are also bad news for local economies that depend on national parks. Nationwide, parks support more than 250,000 private sector jobs and contribute almost $13 billion annually to local economies. Even Roger Williams National Memorial in my home State of Rhode Island attracted nearly 51,000 visitors in 2011, with nonlocal visitors adding more than $3.2 million to the local economy. The Roger Williams National Memorial is one of the smallest of our national parks. Even this small park is a major factor in my community. These closures and cutbacks will certainly affect the bottom line of communities across this Nation if fewer families are able to visit and enjoy our Federal lands and our national forests. Sequestration will also impact programs that generate revenue for the Federal Government. The Interior Department oversees onshore and offshore energy development and expects those activities will be slowed dramatically. The trial for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill--and my colleague from Louisiana was so effective and so critical to the response of the Federal Government for her home State of Louisiana and the whole gulf coast--that started on Monday is an important reminder of how critical these activities are to preventing these disasters rather than somehow try to recoup losses after the fact. Yet the Department will be forced to furlough employees who conduct lease sales, issue permits for new development, conduct environmental reviews, and inspect operations. That is no way to run a railroad or a national Department of Interior. These cuts could result in 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases in Western States and processing delays for the 550 offshore exploration and development plans expected this year. Companies may decide that development is not worth it because of the uncertainty, which will lead to less production and smaller royalties for the Treasury. In other words, the cuts required by sequestration could actually end up costing the government money rather than saving money and could take away from the developing ability of the United States to become more and more energy independent through production within the country rather than buying petrochemicals and petroleum products from overseas. The sequester is a real problem for environmental programs in the Interior bill and throughout nearly all government programs. But there are ways to prevent this meat-ax approach to addressing the budget. Indeed, Democrats have put forward a specific and clear plan--half cuts and half revenue--to replace the sequester. Simply, we have put a plan forward that puts jobs first by cutting specific wasteful spending and closing dubious tax loopholes. This bill gives the economy more breathing room by offsetting the sequester with smart policies that should be enacted even if there were no threat of sequester. Let's be clear what is at stake. The Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently testified that the 2013 sequester will result in 750,000 lost jobs and a 0.6-percent reduction in GDP for 2013. Lost jobs and lower growth--that is what sequester is going to produce. I don't think the people of Rhode Island or anyone else in the United States wants to have Congress support policies that mean fewer jobs. We have a crisis in Rhode Island, a jobs crisis that should be addressed before anything else. We hear from the other side of the Capitol that we must have a sequester to address the budget. But over the last few years, as my colleagues have pointed out, we have slashed the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bulk of that reduction, $1.7 trillion, has come through spending cuts. We have been cutting. Indeed, my Republican colleagues have repeatedly held the economy hostage in order to cut spending that benefits the vast majority of Americans and protect tax cuts that benefit the wealthy few. That is not economically efficient, and that is not fair. We see the results in my home State of Rhode Island--a 10.2-percent unemployment rate. That is unacceptably high. And 12.3 million Americans across the country are still unemployed. This Republican agenda of protecting the wealthiest and not investing in job creation is out of step with the majority of Americans. Most Americans would prefer right now that we address the jobs crisis. And by the way, more people working means we also address the deficit. They pay taxes, they don't qualify for unemployment insurance, and they don't apply for other programs. That is the smart way and the way we should deal, at least in part, with our deficit problem. We should not be jeopardizing our economy. We should not be allowing these loopholes to exist that allow multinational corporations to ship our jobs overseas. We should not let these loopholes that give benefits to oil and gas companies that are recording historic profits linger, all ultimately at the expense of investing in programs like those that will put Americans to work in the parks and rebuilding our infrastructure across America. More austerity--and that is what this sequester is all about, especially in the form of these reckless cuts-- will hurt the economy. We should instead be working to create jobs. We should also recall that we are here today as a legacy of the Republican brinkmanship of threatening to allow the United States to default on its national debt. That is why we are here. Let's not forget that. The sequester was a means to avoid what would have been a catastrophic default. Now we have the opportunity to change course, to invest in our people and invest in growth and do it in a balanced way. We cannot cut our way to prosperity. The President said that. These contractionary policies-- this austerity the Republicans are urging upon us--will reduce economic growth at a time we need to expand economic growth, not only to create jobs but to truly address the deficit in a responsible, reasonable way. We have come through the threat of default on the debt with severe and unbalanced spending cuts. Now is the time to have a balanced approach. I urge that this balanced approach be adopted quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on each side?

Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes. As so many of my colleagues have described, Chuck Hagel is a soldier, a statesman, a businessman, a patriot. As my colleague from West Virginia pointed out, he could have chosen a much easier path in the 1960s, a path that many trod, but he chose the most difficult. He not only joined the Army, but he volunteered for Vietnam, when he had the opportunity to serve honorably and well in Europe. He joined his brother at Fort Dix. He knows the pressures our men and women face. And he knows the decisions we make here, and the decisions that are made in the Pentagon, ultimately are carried out by those young men and women in uniform. In fact, I can't think of anyone over the last several decades who has learned that lesson so well. The other thing that is so impressive is that this is not a one- dimensional resume. Chuck Hagel was a businessman, and very successful. He founded his own company, created jobs, and created opportunities. He was the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration. He has run a large Federal agency. Very seldom do people come into one of these positions having run a Federal agency, or at least being the second in command. And he has been a U.S. Senator. So he knows very well the procedures and the personalities that are here in the U.S. Congress. To me, though, some of the most compelling endorsements come from those who have actually done the job before. When Bob Gates and Bill Cohen and Bill Perry stand up and say, this is the person for the job, you have to believe that. These gentlemen have done the job for Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, and they have done it with great distinction. Then when you get somebody such as Brent Scowcroft, who is, in my view, one of the most knowledgeable and authoritative voices in national security, and was the National Security Adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush--who also weighed in, along with Madeleine Albright--you have compelling, irrefutable evidence and testimony from those who have done the job that Chuck Hagel can do the job. There has been a lot said and discussed as to whether he truly appreciates the relationship between the United States and some of our closest allies, particularly Israel. Here we have the current Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel Danny Ayalon, who also serves as our Ambassador from Israel to the United States, saying that he has met him, he feels, in his view--and I will paraphrase--he has a true understanding of the natural partnership between the United States and Israel. Again, that is compelling evidence. If you add to that the unconditional endorsement of several former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, American patriots who have dedicated themselves to maintaining a strong, vital, vibrant, and crucial relationship for both the State of Israel and the United States, the evidence accumulates more and more that the President has chosen well and wisely. This is a critical time. We are looking at conflicts in Afghanistan, we are looking at a nuclear detonation on the Korean peninsula, we are looking at budget problems that have never faced any previous Secretary of Defense and that have to be addressed within days or weeks. There is a ministerial meeting next week in Brussels for our defense ministers. We have to maintain our alliances. All these forces come together. So I think the evidence is overwhelming. The President has chosen well and wisely. But let me make one final point. This is a historic vote. By my recollection, no nominee for the Secretary of Defense has been defeated, delayed, or dismissed on a procedural vote. Our history suggests, because of this office, because it is one so closely associated with the President making life- and-death decisions, that deference is given to that choice--at least that it is not caught up in a procedural battle, that there is an up- or-down vote. My colleagues, in good faith, after careful study, can vote yea or nay, but to defeat someone on a procedural vote would be unprecedented and unwarranted. As a result, I would urge that this procedural motion before us be carried, cloture be dispensed with, and we can get on to expressing our true feelings based on the evidence and based on our best judgment of whether Senator Hagel should serve as Secretary of Defense. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Murphy legislation to authorize the National Park Service to evaluate portions of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers located in Rhode Island and Connecticut for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to highlight the need for greater resources to protect and restore the health of these rivers by studying their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and determining if they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed is a national treasure that holds recreational and scenic value. In the 1980s, the National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program conducted a planning and conservation study which found, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.'' The rivers also provide opportunities for recreation and tourism that contribute to the economy of the local communities, while offering ways to explore our American heritage throughout the watershed. The experiences one can enjoy range from visiting Native American fishing grounds to seeing Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers are also a prime location for outdoor activities like trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking. I have long been a supporter of protecting and restoring Southern New England's riverways and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay. The study proposed in our legislation is an important part of the process in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. It would also help Rhode Island and Connecticut continue their stewardship of these rivers, and greatly enhance existing state and local efforts to preserve and manage this ecosystem. Indeed, partnerships are essential for the successful restoration and management of our natural resources, and it is anticipated that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the communities, state agencies, local governments, and private organizations that are stakeholders in the process. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the preservation of the natural resources with the recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies. I commend Representatives Langevin, Cicilline, and Courtney for introducing similar legislation in the other body. I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues to pass this bill to initiate the process that will evaluate the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with my colleagues Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Murphy legislation to authorize the National Park Service to evaluate portions of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers located in Rhode Island and Connecticut for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to highlight the need for greater resources to protect and restore the health of these rivers by studying their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and determining if they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed is a national treasure that holds recreational and scenic value. In the 1980s, the National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program conducted a planning and conservation study which found, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.'' The rivers also provide opportunities for recreation and tourism that contribute to the economy of the local communities, while offering ways to explore our American heritage throughout the watershed. The experiences one can enjoy range from visiting Native American fishing grounds to seeing Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers are also a prime location for outdoor activities like trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking. I have long been a supporter of protecting and restoring Southern New England's riverways and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay. The study proposed in our legislation is an important part of the process in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. It would also help Rhode Island and Connecticut continue their stewardship of these rivers, and greatly enhance existing state and local efforts to preserve and manage this ecosystem. Indeed, partnerships are essential for the successful restoration and management of our natural resources, and it is anticipated that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the communities, state agencies, local governments, and private organizations that are stakeholders in the process. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the preservation of the natural resources with the recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies. I commend Representatives Langevin, Cicilline, and Courtney for introducing similar legislation in the other body. I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues to pass this bill to initiate the process that will evaluate the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.