Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, first, let me express my disappointment that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked consideration of vitally important cyber security legislation. The Secretary of Defense, when asked about a potential threat to the United States, declares emphatically that his biggest concern is that the next Pearl Harbor will be a cyber attack upon the United States and if we cannot at least fully debate, amend the bill, and pass the bill, then I think we are not performing up to the expectations of the American people. So I am very disappointed that we were not able to complete this legislation in a timely fashion this week and give the necessary tools to our national leadership to protect the country against potential cyber threats. Federal Housing Finance Agency Having said that, I also want to rise today to express my profound disappointment in the Federal Housing Finance Agency's decision to prohibit the use of principal reduction by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one more tool to avoid foreclosure under the HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA). As conservator, the acting FHFA Director, Mr. DeMarco, has a duty to not only carry on the business of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also to preserve and conserve the assets of both, which FHFA has stated repeatedly requires them to minimize losses. At the same time he has other statutory responsibilities. Under section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, there is a requirement that FHFA ``implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of . . . available programs to minimize foreclosures.'' So there is a clear statutory direction to do all that he can to minimize foreclosures while he is also balancing the portfolio and minimizing losses to Fannie and Freddie. To boil all of this down, FHFA has to minimize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae losses, and pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which passed this Chamber on a strong bipartisan vote of 74 to 25, this requirement to protect homes from foreclosure or the people from the threat of foreclosure is a strong bipartisan objective. FHFA was directed by Congress to throw its weight in favor of avoiding foreclosures, especially in those instances in which a policy decision may be a close call. I believe that is the plain meaning of ``maximize assistance'' to ``minimize foreclosures.'' Maximize assistance--not provide assistance but to maximize assistance to avoid foreclosure. I would further note that section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act explicitly permits ``reduction of loan principal.'' So we consciously gave the Acting FHFA Director the specific tool of principal reduction and the specific directive to maximize assistance to minimize foreclosure. We did that in the context of the overall mission to try to minimize losses of the Fannie and Freddie portfolio. But to turn essentially a blind eye to the thousands of Americans who are facing foreclosure is to ignore a vital responsibility and a vital authority which he has been given. After reading FHFA's July 31, 2012, letter to Members of Congress, my impression is that FHFA has done exactly the opposite of what we have asked them to do. Indeed, the letter contradicts itself in arriving at its conclusion. FHFA states in one part of the letter that it will not allow principal reductions under the PRA program. But in another part of the letter, FHFA goes on to write, Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the Enterprises offer, result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house. In other words, it seems, in their view, principal reduction is acceptable in some cases, especially if the owners leave their home. Now, I think there are thousands of Americans who are facing huge challenges to stay in their homes. It is ironic that FHFA will reduce the principal, only after the person actually loses their home. But if it, through PRA, allows a person to keep their home, and avoid foreclosure, then FHFA will not do it. In the same letter FHFA also states that: Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, valid contract risks creating a longer-term view by investors that the mortgage contract is less secure than ever before. Longer- term, this view could lead to higher mortgage rates, a constriction in mortgage credit lending or both, outcomes that would be inconsistent with FHFA's mandate to promote stability and liquidity in mortgage markets and access to mortgage credit. So forgiving debt is inconsistent with FHFA's mandate, but FHFA admits to allowing principal forgiveness in certain cases? Again, let me repeat their own words. Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the Enterprises offer, result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house. But FHFA also states: Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, valid contract risks creating a longer-term view by investors that the mortgage contract is less secure than ever before. Well, how does this make any real common sense? We will forgive principal if homeowners are going to get kicked out of their house, which presumably upsets the long-term perspective of investors and bonds that support those mortgages. But if homeowners are staying in their house, we will not reduce principal through PRA. Turning to the point of moral hazard, which is implicit in all that has been discussed by FHFA, and given that FHFA has blessed principal forgiveness in these two instances of short sales and deeds-in-lieu, and additionally permits principal reduction as part of the Hardest Hit Fund, which also utilizes Treasury incentives, I can only assume that FHFA must have found a way to control and avoid moral hazard when they want to and use moral hazard as an excuse when they don't want to do something. Either it is an issue that must be consistently addressed, which they don't do, or it is an after-the-fact rationalization for failure to pursue a policy which for other reasons they don't want to do. Having made these points, let me give FHFA the benefit of the doubt here and assume for the sake of argument that FHFA wants greater certainty and assurances. I think they said as much when they wrote: FHFA weighed these potential benefits and costs, recognizing the inherent uncertainties associated with these estimates, and concluded that the potential benefit was too small and uncertain relative to known and unknown costs and risks to warrant the dedication of additional taxpayer resources to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement HAMP

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Self- Sufficiency Act. The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing 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 the purchase or maintenance of a car or for additional workforce training. My 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. First, to streamline the FSS program, my bill would combine the two separate FSS programs into one. Currently, HUD operates one FSS program for those families being served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families being served by the Public Housing program, even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same for both. As a result, Public Housing Agencies, PHAs, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With my bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden. Second, my 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 is more effective. This 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, this 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 urge my colleagues to support this 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 introduce the Family Self- Sufficiency Act. The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing 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 the purchase or maintenance of a car or for additional workforce training. My 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. First, to streamline the FSS program, my bill would combine the two separate FSS programs into one. Currently, HUD operates one FSS program for those families being served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families being served by the Public Housing program, even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same for both. As a result, Public Housing Agencies, PHAs, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With my bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden. Second, my 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 is more effective. This 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, this 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 urge my colleagues to support this 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 congratulate Olivia Culpo of my own hometown, Cranston, RI, for being crowned Miss USA on June 3, 2012, in Las Vegas, NV. She is the first titleholder from our State. A native Rhode Islander, Olivia attended St. Mary Academy-Bay View and graduated with high honors. She is currently a sophomore at Boston University and has been on the dean's list every semester. Olivia is also an accomplished cellist who has performed with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Pops Orchestra, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, the Rhode Island Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble, the Bay View Orchestra, and the Rhode Island All- State Orchestra. I had the pleasure of meeting Olivia recently when she came to Capitol Hill to passionately advocate for ovarian cancer prevention. Olivia is an impressive and intelligent young woman, and I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this and other issues with her. Rhode Island is very proud that such a talented young woman is representing our State. We look forward to continuing to see Olivia serve as a positive role model both during and beyond her reign as Miss USA, and wish her the best of luck when she represents the United States at the Miss Universe pageant in December. Once again, I offer my sincerest congratulations to Olivia Culpo for being the first Rhode Islander to be crowned Miss USA.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks with respect to the current debate, let me pay tribute to Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the Capitol Police, and to all of the Capitol Police officers, men and women who protect us each day. I was here on that somber day when these gentlemen sacrificed their lives to protect innocent people in this building. Their example continues to sustain us and inspire us. They continue to sustain and inspire the Capitol Police officers who today are protecting us. We thank them all. As my colleague from West Virginia commented, we are in the midst of a very serious debate with huge consequences for our country, our economy, our future. That is why I rise today in support of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. This bill will extend the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for the middle class through 2013. It will provide tax relief to every American, especially to those families who have struggled through this recession and this weak recovery, and restore some fairness to the Tax Code by letting the top marginal tax rates return to the Clinton- era levels. If we do not extend these tax cuts for the middle class, the typical Rhode Island family of four could see their taxes raised by an average of $2,200 in 2013. This is not fair to middle-income Rhode Islanders, middle-income Americans. Unfortunately, I fear many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will block this bill because it does not extend additional tax cuts for taxpayers who make over a quarter of a million dollars. Instead, they will continue to press for a proposal that doubles down on the failed economic policies of the Bush era for a plan that gives more tax cuts to the wealthy, while eliminating middle-class tax breaks for families with children. Indeed, one of the astounding things about the Republican proposal is it will, if you look closely, actually increase the tax burden on middle-income Americans. In contrast, the bill Democrats propose will benefit every single taxpayer in America. It is only when someone exceeds a quarter of a million dollars in income that their income in excess of the quarter of a million dollar threshold will be subject to the top two Clinton-era rates. The Democratic plan will extend tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans. Only the top 2 percent of earners, approximately 2.1 million out of more than 100 million households, households that have disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts for more than a decade, will see their top rates revert to Clinton era levels. They will get to maintain their benefits up to $250,000, but after that, they will see an increase. This is the nature of our progressive tax system, one which for generations has spread the burden across income levels, making sure that middle-income Americans do not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the taxes that support this government. One of the key facts we have observed, now for more than a decade, is that these Bush tax cuts have been very costly. They have been a primary driver of this deficit, in addition to unpaid conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and a prescription drug program that was not paid for. At least with this proposal, we are beginning to try to reverse that trend in a principled way. The wealthiest, those who enjoy the greatest economic privilege in the country should shoulder some of the responsibility, and should shoulder some of the effort in order to help us begin to repair the deficit, which has grown as a result of these massively costly and ineffective tax breaks the wealthiest have enjoyed since 2001. The Democratic bill will cost the Federal Government $249 billion in lost revenue for a 1-year extension. The Republican bill will cost $405 billion. So, again, if you are talking about trying to get a handle on the deficit, compare a bill for $249 billion, which is expensive but significantly less than $405 billion Republican plan that would do virtually nothing to restore fairness to our tax code or create jobs. I do not think our Nation can afford this $405 billion Republican alternative. There has been a promise or a mantra that has been offered over the last decade that these Republican tax cuts create jobs, and that they would contribute to our prosperity. But what we have seen, particularly over the 8 years of the Bush administration, is that these tax cuts for the wealthy did not create jobs. I believe the evidence we have shows that there is very little correlation between these tax cuts for the wealthy and job creation or economic prosperity. Additionally, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans constrain our ability to pursue policies that will boost growth in the near-term. Indeed, if we do not have the resources to invest in the country, in our infrastructure, in our education, in the health of our people, we will not have the economic dynamism needed to be competitive and give our children the future they deserve. Frankly, like the future our parents gave to us. A future that previous generations were able to provide for because of Federal tax policies which were fairer, which were more progressive, and which allowed for significant investment and job growth. In my State, with a 10.9-percent unemployment rate and a national unemployment rate above 8 percent, it is imperative that we embrace fiscal policy that creates jobs in the short-term but also recognizes the need for long-term deficit reduction. Democrats have offered plan after plan that would preserve and create jobs in a fair and fiscally responsible manner. We press for policies that will provide more of an economic bang for the buck, policies such as the continuation of unemployment benefits and policies that provide relief to middle-class households. What we have to do is go forward, support this effort, begin the hard and difficult task of not only continuing to support middle-income families but begin to address the issue of long-term deficit reduction. I hope my colleagues do not block this effort. I hope my colleagues do not once again decide that doing nothing is a viable alternative to helping middle-income Americans and helping our economy overall. Unfortunately, they have done that in the past. Earlier this month, the Republicans blocked a bill that cut taxes for small businesses that hired new workers. The bill was estimated to create 1 million jobs nationally and could have created about 3,500 jobs in my State, but Republicans filibustered. Just last week, the Republicans blocked a bill that would have given tax cuts to businesses that brought jobs to the United States and closed tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas. Republicans blocked that also. I believe the record is clear. Democrats have been trying week in and week out to create jobs here at home, to make our tax system fairer, to give middle-income families a break, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The vote on the Middle Class Tax Cut Act will be upon us shortly. I hope it will be a vote on which we prevail and go forward together and provide tax relief to middle-class Americans. I think it will be a first step toward the larger issues that were alluded to by my colleague from West Virginia dealing with the potential of sequestration at the end of this year, advancing policies that will grow our economy while beginning to restrain our deficit and provide a more stable, more sustainable economic environment for all Americans. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Connecticut, Senators Whitehouse and Lieberman, legislation to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to bring greater attention to and resources for efforts to protect and restore the health of these rivers through the evaluation of their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and whether they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is a natural treasure. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program conducted a planning and conservation study in the 1980s which concluded, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor in Rhode Island ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.'' These rivers also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism that contribute to the local economy. Not only do its rivers provide easy access to the wilderness for family outings and school field trips, but they also offer ways to explore our heritage throughout the watershed, from Native American fishing grounds to Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers also provide opportunities for trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking. I have long supported the protection and restoration of Southern New England's watersheds and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay, and this study is an important first step in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. Our states have been excellent stewards of these rivers, and this study would enhance existing local and State efforts to preserve and manage this open space and its wildlife habitat. Indeed, partnerships are key to broad restoration and management of our resources, and it is expected that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the affected communities, state agencies, local governments, and other interested organizations. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part of the study, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies with preservation of the natural resources. This is a two State initiative that will encompass both Rhode Island and Connecticut, and will help protect these resources for future generations to enjoy. I commend Representatives Langevin and Courtney for spearheading this effort in the other body, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to initiate the process to study the rivers of the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address a matter that I explored as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment. During a series of hearings, it became increasingly clear to me that in order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and better oversight of Wall Street. Some of these institutions that are ``too big to fail'' have also become ``too big to care.'' We need to end the cycle of misconduct where such institutions can look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit. At a Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversight hearing I held in November 2011, I asked Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, why a recently proposed settlement with Citigroup had been thrown out by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who believed it to be egregiously low. Mr. Khuzami replied that the SEC's ability to assess penalties was actually limited by the statute. In follow-up questions, I directly asked if Congress should consider raising these limits, especially in cases involving repeated offenders. I subsequently received a letter from SEC Chairman Schapiro, and written answers from Mr. Khuzami, supporting the need to raise the limits and make other improvements to the SEC civil enforcement statute. As a result, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012 or the SEC Penalties Act. This bill will strengthen the ability of the SEC to crack down on violations of securities laws by updating its civil penalties statute. This legislation will ensure that the punishment better fits the crime by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Our bill will increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense. Our bill will also toughen penalties by allowing penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It also provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors. In the recent case involving Citigroup, existing law did not even entitle the SEC to recover the amount actually lost by investors. Estimated investors losses were about $700 million, but the SEC proposed to settle the case with Citigroup for only $285 million. This amount was what was estimated to be close to the total monetary recovery that the SEC itself could have obtained if it had gone to trial. Under our bill, this amount could have been much larger, and would have taken into account the economic gain to Citigroup, in addition to investor losses. Recent reports have highlighted the level of repeat offenses that have occurred on Wall Street and gone unchecked. The SEC Penalties Act includes two statutory changes that would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties as recidivism occurs. One would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud. The other would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings will be the same as it is in district court. In essence, the SEC will be able to assess these types of penalties in- house, and not just obtain them in federal court. Given the JP Morgan trading scandal, issues arising from the Facebook IPO, and the manipulation of LIBOR, it is clear much still needs to be done to improve transparency and restore confidence in our financial system. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. Our economy's success depends in no small part on restoring confidence in our capital markets. The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street. It will enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Connecticut, Senators Whitehouse and Lieberman, legislation to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Beaver, Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Rhode Island and Connecticut for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our legislation seeks to bring greater attention to and resources for efforts to protect and restore the health of these rivers through the evaluation of their recreational, natural, and historical qualities and whether they are suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The recreational and scenic wealth of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is a natural treasure. The National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program conducted a planning and conservation study in the 1980s which concluded, in part, that the waters of the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers corridor in Rhode Island ``are the cleanest and purest and its recreational opportunities are unparalleled by any other river system in the state.'' These rivers also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism that contribute to the local economy. Not only do its rivers provide easy access to the wilderness for family outings and school field trips, but they also offer ways to explore our heritage throughout the watershed, from Native American fishing grounds to Colonial and early industrial mill ruins. The rivers also provide opportunities for trout fishing, canoeing, bird watching, and hiking. I have long supported the protection and restoration of Southern New England's watersheds and estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay, and this study is an important first step in determining future opportunities for protection and recreational enjoyment of the rivers in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. Our states have been excellent stewards of these rivers, and this study would enhance existing local and State efforts to preserve and manage this open space and its wildlife habitat. Indeed, partnerships are key to broad restoration and management of our resources, and it is expected that this study would be conducted in close cooperation with the affected communities, state agencies, local governments, and other interested organizations. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part of the study, which could address issues ranging from fish passage to the restoration of wetlands to assist with flood mitigation, as well as balance the recreational opportunities that contribute to the local economies with preservation of the natural resources. This is a two State initiative that will encompass both Rhode Island and Connecticut, and will help protect these resources for future generations to enjoy. I commend Representatives Langevin and Courtney for spearheading this effort in the other body, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to initiate the process to study the rivers of the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to address a matter that I explored as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment. During a series of hearings, it became increasingly clear to me that in order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and better oversight of Wall Street. Some of these institutions that are ``too big to fail'' have also become ``too big to care.'' We need to end the cycle of misconduct where such institutions can look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit. At a Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversight hearing I held in November 2011, I asked Robert Khuzami, director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, why a recently proposed settlement with Citigroup had been thrown out by a Federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who believed it to be egregiously low. Mr. Khuzami replied that the SEC's ability to assess penalties was actually limited by the statute. In follow-up questions, I directly asked if Congress should consider raising these limits, especially in cases involving repeated offenders. I subsequently received a letter from SEC Chairman Schapiro, and written answers from Mr. Khuzami, supporting the need to raise the limits and make other improvements to the SEC civil enforcement statute. As a result, I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012 or the SEC Penalties Act. This bill will strengthen the ability of the SEC to crack down on violations of securities laws by updating its civil penalties statute. This legislation will ensure that the punishment better fits the crime by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Our bill will increase the per violation cap for the most egregious securities laws violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities. This will help ensure that the SEC's most severe, or ``tier three,'' penalties will help deter people from engaging in the most serious offenses, rather than have such wrongdoing be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual securities law violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000 per offense. Our bill will also toughen penalties by allowing penalties equal to three times the economic gain of the violator. It also provides a new calculation method that includes the amount of associated investor losses as part of the penalty determination. This should allow the SEC to address situations where the actual economic gain to the violator is relatively small compared to the extent of the wrongdoing or the harm caused to investors. In the recent case involving Citigroup, existing law did not even entitle the SEC to recover the amount actually lost by investors. Estimated investors losses were about $700 million, but the SEC proposed to settle the case with Citigroup for only $285 million. This amount was what was estimated to be close to the total monetary recovery that the SEC itself could have obtained if it had gone to trial. Under our bill, this amount could have been much larger, and would have taken into account the economic gain to Citigroup, in addition to investor losses. Recent reports have highlighted the level of repeat offenses that have occurred on Wall Street and gone unchecked. The SEC Penalties Act includes two statutory changes that would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties as recidivism occurs. One would allow the SEC to triple the applicable penalty cap for recidivists who, within the preceding five years, have been criminally convicted of securities fraud or been the subject of a judgment or order imposing monetary, equitable, or administrative relief in any action alleging SEC fraud. The other would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty if an individual or entity has violated an existing federal court injunction or bar imposed by the SEC. Many believe this approach would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Finally, under the SEC Penalties Act, the penalty relief available in administrative proceedings will be the same as it is in district court. In essence, the SEC will be able to assess these types of penalties in- house, and not just obtain them in federal court. Given the JP Morgan trading scandal, issues arising from the Facebook IPO, and the manipulation of LIBOR, it is clear much still needs to be done to improve transparency and restore confidence in our financial system. The nearly one-half of all U.S. households that own securities deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. Our economy's success depends in no small part on restoring confidence in our capital markets. The SEC Penalties Act will help by giving the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street. It will enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, twenty years ago, Brown University, located in my home State of Rhode Island, established the Leadership Alliance, a national academic consortium of leading research universities and minority serving institutions with the mission to develop underrepresented students into outstanding leaders and role models in academia, business, and the public sector. Brown University and its partner institutions have continued to address this pressing national need. The National Research Council recently published a report titled ``Research Universities and the Future of America'' that included a call for ten ``breakthrough actions.'' Two of these actions involve reforming graduate education and creating pathways into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for women and underrepresented minorities. That is what the Leadership Alliance has been striving to do since 1992. Through an organized program of research, networking and mentorship at critical transitions along the entire academic training pathway, the Leadership Alliance prepares young scientists and scholars from underrepresented and underserved populations for graduate training and professional apprenticeships. Leadership Alliance faculty mentors provide high quality, cutting-edge research experiences in all academic disciplines at the Nation's most competitive graduate training institutions and share insights into the nature of academic careers. In the 20 years since its establishment, the Leadership Alliance has established a strong track record of success. More than half of the students who participated in the Summer Research Early Identification program enrolled in a graduate level program. Leadership Alliance institutions graduated approximately 25 percent of all doctorates in the biomedical sciences degrees to underrepresented minority students between 2004 and 2008, making it a leading consortium grantor of PhD degrees in the biomedical sciences in the United States. Since founding the Leadership Alliance in 1992, Brown has mentored 386 scholars, of whom 35 percent have attained a graduate level degree. Nearly half of the students who participated in its Summer Research Early Identification program completed a graduate level degree. A majority of the Leadership Alliance doctoral degree recipients are in the STEM disciplines. The Leadership Alliance is a model for identifying, training, and mentoring underrepresented minorities who are poised to expand and diversify the base of the 21st century workforce. I am pleased today to recognize the importance of such efforts and acknowledge the continued dedication of institutional leaders, faculty members, and administrators across the United States who provide training and mentoring of underrepresented students along the academic pathway. As such, I congratulate and commend the Leadership Alliance, including Brown University, for 20 years of contributing to creating a diverse and competitive research and scholarly workforce. Mr. CASEY: Mr. President, today I would like to acknowledge the great work of the Leadership Alliance during its 20th anniversary. The Leadership Alliance is a consortium of 32 leading colleges and universities that aims to train, mentor and inspire a diverse group of students from a wide range of backgrounds to enter competitive graduate programs and research careers. This admirable goal of expanding access to high-quality programs is supported by the consortium's shared resources and vision. I would especially like to acknowledge the program at the University of Pennsylvania, which is one of the Leadership Alliance founding members and the only member in Pennsylvania. According to the university, the Leadership Alliance complements Penn's broader strategic vision of increasing diversity within its graduate student body and faculty. As it seeks to prepare leaders and role models for service in academia and the private and public sectors, the Leadership Alliance disseminates best practices in recruitment, mentoring and career development. With 20 years of experience in developing and sharing these essential techniques, the Leadership Alliance has helped to provide the Nation with a more diverse and globally competitive workforce. I wish to congratulate the Leadership Alliance on its 20th anniversary and thank its leaders and scholars for their significant contributions.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the DISCLOSE Act. I commend Senator Blumenthal for his extraordinarily insightful and articulate words with respect to this critical issue. I particularly wish to commend the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse. He has been the driving force to bring this issue to the floor, to educate all of us in the Senate and the American people about what is at stake, and in many respects, it is our democracy. It is the presumption that every American has their vote count just as much as anybody else's vote, that elections are decided based upon issues and ideas and not by the sheer volume and the sheer magnitude of 30-second advertisements that are designed more to divert than to inform, designed more to excite than to inform. Most people believe in a system that is based on thoughtful consideration of ideas and issues and in a system in which everyone's vote counts. Senator Whitehouse is an extraordinarily gifted attorney. He understands these issues perhaps as well as anyone in this body. He was a Federal attorney and our state's attorney general, and he has brought not just knowledge of the Constitution but this passion for justice and fairness and decency and democracy to the forefront of our debate today, and this will not be the last day we will be debating this issue. So let me begin by commending his efforts. A fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is the right to vote. Each citizens gets one vote, and this right represents a critical pillar of our democracy because we treat everyone equally, allowing each citizen to have this crucial and critical say in who governs, on the issues, and ultimately what is the course of this great country. But because of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, I worry that our political and civic conversations now advantage those who flood our airwaves, papers, and Web sites by talking--if not shouting-- louder simply because they have more money and resources to do so. The New York Times recently included the following in an article, giving us one indication of how much money is awash in our political system, and it reflects what my colleague from Connecticut said. During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent PACs by a 3-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads. And the clock is still ticking and the amount is accumulating. That electioneering in the shadows is not what most Americans want. They want robust debate. They want candidates to engage as candidates, not the witting or unwitting beneficiaries or victims of anonymous advertisements in their race. This is not, I believe, what the creators of the Constitution thought would happen or hoped would happen. They envisioned a country in which the best ideas and the best arguments prevailed regardless of how loudly one spoke; that it was the quality of the argument, not the volume of the speaker, that mattered. What should be important is this quality of speech, not the quantity, and, frankly, there is a direct correlation between the amount of money you have today and the quantity of your speech in the media. That is just the reality of paid advertisement, which dominates political campaigns. But I think this vision, because of Citizens United, has been turned on its head. Now those with the greatest resources, the most money, have been given a disproportionate advantage. By allowing corporations and unions to unleash the full power of their treasury funds and explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates in Federal or State elections in the name of protecting and promoting free speech, I think the Supreme Court missed the mark. It missed the mark about the centrality of an individual's vote and the substance of a campaign being about ideas, not about derogatory advertising, not about anything else except the issues. That is the ideal. That is what our Founding Fathers were hoping for and, indeed, I think expecting, and I think that has been terribly distorted by this opinion. There is an interesting situation going on here. In the attempt to create, under Citizens United, what the Supreme Court, I expect, was hoping to do--create an atmosphere in which speech is free--they created a situation in which speech is no longer free. Effective speech is no longer free; it actually comes with a very high cost and goes to the person who is the highest bidder. That is not free speech, not effective free speech; it is purchased speech. And if our elections are going to be decided not by free speech but by purchased speech, they will be won always by the highest bidder, by the person with the biggest wallet, the person who is willing to spend as much as necessary to prevail. And it will raise and it does raise the specter of, is this about the future of the country or is this about the narrow self- interest of someone who is willing to invest a great deal of money into a particular race? And I think most people would conclude that it is probably about the narrow self-interests of someone who invests a great deal of money in a race. Simply put, I think Citizens United is deeply flawed, and more than one expert has voiced their frustration and disappointment with this decision. Shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United in 2010, Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, which is a center-right--more right than center, perhaps--organization, wrote, in a column in Roll Call called ``Court Way Oversteps its Authority With the Citizens United Case,'' these words: I hoped Citizens United would be decided narrowly but feared that the court would take a meat ax to a century of settled law and policy. My worst fears were realized. This decision equates corporations, which have one goal, to make money, with individual citizens, who have many goals and motives in their lives, including making a better society, protecting their children and grandchildren and future generations, and so on . . . This was a case never raised by the plaintiffs and never formally brought before the Roberts Court. We do not have an instance where an actual for-profit corporation has complained that it has been barred from its ability to get its message across in the political process. The cases overturned and the laws struck down were considered carefully by judges and Congresses past, including in the McConnell decision barely six years ago. Only one thing has changed since--the political and ideological complexion of the Supreme Court brought on in particular by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. Additionally, Richard Posner, a respected Conservative Judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, recently stated the following on his blog: [T]he Court, rather naively as it seems to most observers, reasoned in the Citizens United case that the risk of corruption would be slight if the donor was not contributing to a candidate or a political party, but merely expressing his political preferences through an independent organization such as a super PAC--an organization neither controlled by nor even coordinating with a candidate or political party. . . . It thus is difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint. A super PAC is a valuable weapon for a campaign, as the heavy expenditures of Restore Our Future, the large super PAC that supports Romney and has attacked his opponents, proves; the donors to it are known; and it is unclear why they should expect less quid pro quo from their favored candidate if he's successful than a direct donor to the candidate's campaign would be. Judge Posner, I think, is making the case very effectively. If there are limits on direct individual donors' contributions because you do not even want to create the appearance of a quid pro quo, the idea a super PAC, whose donors are known, has less of an ability to influence a candidate and more--I think, significantly, not only a candidate but perhaps an elected official--that does not follow. I think Judge Posner's comments are very on point in that this also invites the perception and perhaps the reality of inappropriate influence on candidates and on elected officials. That was a great deal at the heart of why we passed campaign reform legislation decades ago. Even these points of view by Norm Ornstein and by Judge Posner have not, unfortunately, convinced my Republican colleagues to join us in effect in trying to correct a deficiency which my able colleague from Connecticut pointed out was the fact that the case of Citizens United presumes disclosure. We have tried to debate this legislation and variations many times before. I think we have taken even much stronger action in previous versions, but today we are here in a good-faith effort to meet our colleagues more than halfway. There are those who opposed previous versions of the DISCLOSE Act on the grounds that there were provisions unrelated to disclosure. But these concerns are addressed head on in this legislation crafted by my colleague because it focuses solely on disclosure, and it is effective after this fall's elections. So I ask my colleagues, especially those who have said they are all for disclosure, to join us. Join us to pass this legislation because it is all about disclosure. Let me go back to the language of the Supreme Court opinion quoted by Senator Blumenthal because they presume in the decision there would be full disclosure, and that is what we are asking for tonight on this floor: Give the Court what it thought it had, a system by which the American public can know immediately who is putting all this money into the elections. In the words of the Court in Citizens United: [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so- called moneyed interests. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. That is what the court said. Yet, if we do not pass this legislation, there will not be enough disclosure; because corporate shareholders cannot make judgments about what their corporate directors and managers are investing in, in terms of political activities. Individuals cannot make judgments about the commercials they are seeing because they don't know who is behind them, really. If we want to create the context which presumably undergirded the Supreme Court's decision, we have to pass this legislation. If you do not want to ignore, indeed, what the Court has said, do not want to ignore what our constituents have said, and do not want to allow this anonymous money to flood our elections, to not raise doubt about the process, to not undercut what people traditionally think is the American way--one person, one vote;--then let's start by passing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. This is a tough economy for a lot of people across the United States. It is especially difficult in my home State of Rhode Island, and that is why I support the legislation before us today. It will help small businesses to hire new workers and to expand their payroll or invest in new capital equipment. This is a commonsense step to encourage growth and create jobs. These tax cuts are cost-effective and have been estimated by the CBO as having some of the biggest bang for the buck compared to other fiscal policies that directly benefit businesses. It is especially important to pass cost-effective policies because we are in the midst of a global slowdown that is hurting job creation and lowering government revenue. In contrast, the other body--the House--has been intent upon repealing the Affordable Care Act, rolling back regulations on firms that pollute, or providing tax windfalls to special interests. That approach will not provide the real economic growth we need today to put people to work. In fact, it will exacerbate our deficit, and it will hurt the middle class of the United States. The targeted tax cuts in the legislation we propose, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, stand in stark contrast to the approach taken by the House Republicans in their Small Business Tax Cut Act, which is in many respects just another way to provide huge tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans instead of doing what we should be doing--providing jobs for all Americans. Proposals such as the House Republican bill will only generate 30 cents for every Federal dollar spent as compared to the $1.30 and $1.10 multiplier for tax cuts for job creation and investments in new equipment, respectively, that are included in our bill. Even more disturbing with the House proposal is that nearly half of the $46 billion in tax cuts would go to the wealthiest Americans-- millionaires and billionaires--without having to create one single job. In contrast, our bill provides a targeted 10-percent income tax credit for businesses that increase their payroll by hiring new workers or raising wages this year. So there is a direct link between the tax credit and creating new jobs or raising wages for working men and women. This is a tax credit that is directly linked to this job creation effort, and the credit is targeted to increasing middle-class job wages because the credit only applies to the first $110,000 in wages for any individual employee. So we are looking to target this as closely and precisely as we can to be both effective and prudent with our resources. The tax credit is further targeted to small businesses because it only applies to the first $5 million in new payroll, effectively capping the maximum tax credit to any business to $500,000. The bill also extends bonus depreciation through 2012 for businesses that invest in new capital. Bonus depreciation has proved to be an effective incentive for businesses to pull forward capital purchases and invest in the near term, offsetting some of the weak aggregate demand that has held back our economic recovery. In 2011, bonus depreciation accelerated $150 billion in tax cuts to 2 million businesses and generated an estimated $50 billion in added investment. In total, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act is estimated to create about 1 million jobs nationally and over 3,500 jobs in my State of Rhode Island. We desperately need these jobs, and we need them as quickly as possible. This bill is a responsible, cost-effective, and fair way to generate growth. Before us today is yet another example of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus putting forth reasonable solutions that have been analyzed by economists and determined to provide immediate help to millions of out-of-work Americans. But my fear is that my colleagues on the other side will again filibuster and oppose this effort, like others we have made, while only offering proposals that promise great things but in reality contribute very little to putting people to work quickly. And that is our challenge. The damage caused by the refusal of many of my colleagues to support these legitimate job proposals and their efforts to actively unwind Federal support for our recovery is hard to overstate. Their narrowly focused economic proposals, in which a vast portion of their tax cuts flow to millionaires and billionaires or corporations that send jobs overseas, doesn't help our middle class, doesn't help our economy, doesn't help our Nation's fiscal health. Republican proposals do not respond to our immediate crisis. The legislation before us does respond to that crisis by creating jobs for middle-class working Americans right now. And it does not give large additional tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. So I hope we can move forward. I hope we can bridge the differences and pass this legislation. It is legislation that has been looked at by economists and has been determined to provide real benefits. For every dollar we invest, we will get more than that in terms of economic productivity in the economy. Again, this is in stark contrast to simply proposing to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and assume that would put people to work. That was the essence of the Bush economic policies, and at the end of 8 years we were in one of the deepest economic crises, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. We pulled back from that brink, but in order to go forward, and go forward with momentum and confidence, we have to pass legislation such as the legislation we have proposed today: targeted efforts to put people to work, to move our economy forward, to move the Nation forward. This will help millions of Americans who are impacted by this tough economy in the most meaningful way--and that is simply by getting them back to work. When we do, this country will do great things, as it always has done. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado, Senator Udall, for his leadership on this very important issue. I also want to commend my colleague Senator Whitehouse, who has been extraordinarily effective as a national leader on energy policy and ocean policy. As Senator Udall pointed out, we are at a very critical moment. Nationally, with the support of the wind production tax credit, or the PTC, nearly 500 facilities across 44 States manufacture components for the wind energy industry. These products are critical to our future. The U.S. content of wind turbines installed in the United States has grown from 25 percent prior to 2005 to 60 percent today, according to the American Wind Energy Association. So we are actually seeing a situation in which American components are displacing foreign components in wind turbine installations that are being deployed here in the United States. That is an encouraging sign, because it means more jobs in manufacturing and it means more American content in products that would be purchased by Americans. This is fundamentally premised on the availability of the wind PTC, and so we have to maintain it. If we do not, then we are again at the mercy of world markets in which we suspect that there are countries that are supporting, directly and indirectly, their wind energy sectors very aggressively. We need comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. That will be discussed, I am sure, in the months ahead. But we can't forget that this production tax credit for wind and credits for other clean energy resources support manufacturing jobs across this country, saves money for middle-class families, and increases our global competitiveness. As we think about tax reform, we also have to think about those programs that produce jobs, and this program is one of those job-producing tax provisions. We in Rhode Island have taken steps, as Senator Udall has alluded to, to try to position ourselves to be at the forefront of clean energy development and wind production, particularly offshore wind production. Due in part to strong State policy--and I will commend my colleagues in the State government--we ranked fifth in the country according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy's annual energy efficiency scorecard. Our main utility, National Grid, and our State leaders are taking very aggressive steps to lower the amount of energy we use, which helps us in terms of our competitiveness across the globe and with other States in the country. We have also tried to be a leader in offshore wind, for obvious reasons. We are the Ocean State. We are linked to the ocean, inextricably and historically. Offshore wind is something that could be a huge benefit not only for ourselves but for our region. Quonset Point is a former naval base which was closed in the 1970s. Fortunately, through the work of our predecessors, it became the site of submarine construction. Now it can also be the site of the assembly of turbines because of our access to the coast, because of the investments we made in terms of cranes, because of the investments we have made in shoring up the docks and the bulkheads. We are positioned to be a leader in the assembly of offshore wind turbines. Part of this is not just the assembly expertise, but part of it is also the fact that we have done the fundamental environmental work necessary to make sure this economic development is environmentally sound as well as economically sound. Our local leaders have created the Ocean Special Area Management Plan, or Ocean SAMP, which essentially helps guide the locations for proper placement of wind turbines in the ocean. Among other considerations, it takes into consideration the geology, the tide, the fishing patterns, and the recreational use of the waters. They have come up with a very sophisticated plan, so we are well positioned to start creating this offshore wind production facility with the jobs onshore. Also, as my colleague, the Senator from Colorado, pointed out, we have companies in the State that are leaders in the onshore wind industry. TPI Composites is one of them. It started as a boat builder. It used fiberglass to fabricate hulls for boats. It was sophisticated, it was state of the art. But then they shifted several years ago, because they saw the direction of this wind power development worldwide, and they started producing fiberglass blades for wind power. They have a wonderful facility in Warren, RI, and they were on the verge of expanding. But again, as the Senator from Colorado pointed out, because of the uncertainty of extending the wind production tax credit and because of many other factors, unfortunately they have had to reduce some of their workforce. We want to see them start growing again. We want TPI to be, as it is, a world leader in the production of this type of technology. It is sophisticated. These are good jobs. They are manufacturing jobs. They are American jobs. They are the kind of work we want to be doing worldwide, so that when you go anyplace in the world and you look up, you will see a blade whose tooling, engineering, and manufacturing processes were made in Warren, RI, not in China or elsewhere. We have a challenge in Rhode Island with 11 percent unemployment. So these are the kinds of jobs we not only want for the moment, but we want for the future, because they are valuable. They are not just a contribution in the short run for putting people to work, they are a contribution in the long run, to our economy, to better use of energy, to better environmental quality, to a host of values that will turn out to have huge benefits for the people of Rhode Island and the people of this Nation. I commend the Senator from Colorado for his consistent and persistent efforts to ensure we do not forget the wind production tax credit, and that we are still working hard to ensure we are able to support American manufacturing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Today's Supreme Court ruling that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and the law of the land is a victory, I believe, for Rhode Islanders and for all Americans. Families will no longer fear financial ruin if a child becomes seriously ill or face denial of health coverage due to a child's preexisting condition, and they will no longer have to worry that the terms of their coverage will run out as they are being treated after a major medical emergency. Indeed, tonight, all Americans can sleep a little easier knowing they and their children will have access to quality, affordable health care. This is the type of security we want for our children and what this law will provide. Indeed, for the first time in our history, parents can, with some confidence, trust that whatever lies ahead, their child at least will have access to affordable health care. We couldn't say that with any confidence a few years ago--even 2 years ago--before we took up this legislative activity. This law has already benefited many people in Rhode Island, including individuals, families, and businesses. Children up to age 26 are now able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan. In Rhode Island, this has benefited an estimated 9,000 young adults and their parents. Over 15,000 Rhode Island seniors have saved a total of $14 million on prescription drugs since the law was enacted, an average of close to $600 annually. Seniors will continue to save on their prescription drug costs until the existing coverage gap is closed and will continue to have access to free preventive care such as annual wellness visits and screenings. Rhode Islanders can now expect rebates if an insurance company spends too much on administrative costs and CEO bonuses instead of on their health care. For too long, health insurance companies got away with increasing premiums and decreasing coverage, which resulted in higher costs and unfair practices. Beginning in 2014, Rhode Islanders will be able to purchase health insurance on a new exchange, a single point of entry where they can evaluate the costs and coverage of health insurance options. They will, indeed, for the first time for many Rhode Islanders, have a real choice about the health care they receive and the insurance they purchase. According to Families USA, 97,000 Rhode Islanders will have access to tax credits to make their coverage more affordable. Thousands more childless adults will gain coverage through the Medicaid Program. Now that the Court has spoken, I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to do what we must do, and that is to create jobs and improve our economy. This health care decision is a landmark decision, but the work now--the work of all of us--should be to reinvigorate our economy so that not only can people have confidence in their health care, but they can have the further and indeed very primary confidence that they will have meaningful work. In that respect, I am glad Congress is poised to take action that will enable millions of students and families across the country to breathe a sigh of relief about the student loans they need to borrow for the upcoming academic year. Everyone, from every sector of the country, will tell us that the key to our future is higher education, that we cannot be competitive in a world economy unless we have the best educated students in this country, that we cannot be the powerful force we have been in the world unless we have education. The key for so many jobs today is going on past high school into postsecondary education. Yet we are days away--unless we act--from doubling the loan interest rate we are charging our students. There has been quite a bit of stalling tactics for months. I hope those tactics are over, as the July 1 deadline approaches. I hope we are soon to take action to prevent the doubling of the subsidized Stafford loan interest rate. I would like to thank majority leader Harry Reid for his tireless efforts to negotiate a bipartisan solution. I also wish to recognize and thank three other individuals who were absolutely critical in this effort, who were leaders, without equivocation, with deep conviction; that is, Chairman Tom Harkin of the HELP Committee, who led with vigor throughout this effort; Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who has been committed to this effort; and also our colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut. They have been extraordinary. Last January, Congressman Courtney and I introduced legislation to permanently extend the law that makes college loans more affordable for millions of students across the country. President Obama called on Congress to address the student loan interest rate hike in his State of the Union Address. Back then, many Republicans scoffed at the idea. In fact, they voted for budgets that assumed the interest rate would double, and they did that without any apparent equivocation. But thanks to students and families across the country who raised their voices and made themselves heard, my colleagues got the message: Fixing the student loan interest rate matters. It matters a great deal. It matters to individuals trying to build a better life for themselves. It matters to parents whose dream to give their kids a chance at a better life depends on being able to afford college. It matters to our shared economic future because the single most important investment we as a nation can make is to educate our young people. So thanks to groups such as Campus Progress, USSA, U.S. PIRG, Young Invincibles, and the Rebuild the Dream coalition that pushed this issue to the forefront where it belongs. The letters, e-mails, calls, visits, bus tours, and campus rallies made a difference. We should soon be voting, I hope, to keep this student loan rate low for another year. However, it is important to remember this is only a temporary, short-term fix. Now we need to develop longer term solutions to the 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. These are tough issues, but we have to address them head on. Our economy and our future depends on addressing these issues. It is estimated, for example, that more than 60 percent of the jobs will require some postsecondary education by the year 2018. In 2010, only 38 percent of working-age adults held a 2-year or 4-year degree. We have very few years to go from 40 percent to 60 percent. That gap represents the challenge we have in being a competitive economic force in the world. Certainly, if we are ever going to close that gap, we have to make sure we do not double the interest rate on Stafford loans, as a first step. But, as I suggest, there are many other steps we must take. We have to address the rising cost of college. The cost of attending college has increased by 559 percent since 1985--559 percent--rising far faster than costs for gasoline, health care, and other consumer items. Keeping student loans affordable and interest rates low is one part of the solution. Providing more grant aid through Pell grants and other programs is another. We need to call on institutions to do their part to keep costs in check. Yes, the college community has to rally around this and has to think of innovative ways to provide excellent education at a lower cost, a more affordable cost. States have to play a role too. When State support for higher education goes down, tuition goes up. The crises of so many States--real crises, difficult crises--have forced them to reduce their support for higher education, and the result, as I suggest, has been tuitions climb, and that is another burden middle America and middle-class, middle-income families are bearing. I look forward to working with my colleagues on developing a comprehensive approach to addressing these issues. Also, I would just like to say, I hope we are on the verge--at least for the next year--of avoiding a doubling of interest rates on student loans. We have a long way to go to ensure that every American with talent and drive and the skills has the means to go to college. This is an important first step. There are many more we must take, and I hope we do that very quickly. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of Senator Bingaman's staff--Lisa Peterkin, James Anderson, Bijan Peters, Kendra Doychak, and Eugenia Woods--be granted the privileges of the floor for the pendency of today, Thursday, June, 28, 2012.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, Whitehouse, and Blumenthal in the introduction of the Immunization Improvements Act. This legislation builds on my longstanding work, including several provisions I authored in the Affordable Care Act, to improve vaccination rates and population-based immunity. Our introduction of this legislation is particularly timely given a recent report cited in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing the number of deaths globally as a result of the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 and 2010. The analysis found that the number of deaths from H1N1 to be 15 times the original reports, up from 18,500 to 280,000 cases. In the United States, the estimates are more than triple the original cases, from 8,500 to nearly 30,000. Two provisions of the legislation we are introducing today are based on efforts underway in Rhode Island to improve vaccination rates against seasonal influenza and pneumonia. Specifically, it would authorize a five-state demonstration project that allows the state to purchase certain vaccines and distribute them free of charge to physicians for administration in seniors, who are at the highest risk of death from these preventable diseases. In addition to increasing vaccination rates, this model has limited the cost and administrative burden for providers and reduced the cost of vaccines to the Federal government. The legislation would also require hospitals and long-term care facilities to report on influenza vaccination rates of health care workers with direct patient contact, the population most likely to spread the flu to ill patients that may be too weak to fight it. In Rhode Island, simply requiring health care facilities to report on health care worker influenza vaccinations has resulted in improved rates. The Immunization Improvements Act would also update the allowable vaccine administration fees to providers who vaccinate uninsured and underinsured children, as well as include a recommendation made by both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the Government Accountability Office to shift vaccine coverage in Medicare from Part D to Part B. While there are many diseases and conditions that we have yet to prevent, there are those for which we already have vaccines. We must do more to ensure that these vaccines are available and accessed to protect the health of Americans. This legislation has been endorsed by Every Child By Two, the Immunization Action Coalition, Partnership for Prevention, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, Whitehouse, and Blumenthal in the introduction of the Immunization Improvements Act. This legislation builds on my longstanding work, including several provisions I authored in the Affordable Care Act, to improve vaccination rates and population-based immunity. Our introduction of this legislation is particularly timely given a recent report cited in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing the number of deaths globally as a result of the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 and 2010. The analysis found that the number of deaths from H1N1 to be 15 times the original reports, up from 18,500 to 280,000 cases. In the United States, the estimates are more than triple the original cases, from 8,500 to nearly 30,000. Two provisions of the legislation we are introducing today are based on efforts underway in Rhode Island to improve vaccination rates against seasonal influenza and pneumonia. Specifically, it would authorize a five-state demonstration project that allows the state to purchase certain vaccines and distribute them free of charge to physicians for administration in seniors, who are at the highest risk of death from these preventable diseases. In addition to increasing vaccination rates, this model has limited the cost and administrative burden for providers and reduced the cost of vaccines to the Federal government. The legislation would also require hospitals and long-term care facilities to report on influenza vaccination rates of health care workers with direct patient contact, the population most likely to spread the flu to ill patients that may be too weak to fight it. In Rhode Island, simply requiring health care facilities to report on health care worker influenza vaccinations has resulted in improved rates. The Immunization Improvements Act would also update the allowable vaccine administration fees to providers who vaccinate uninsured and underinsured children, as well as include a recommendation made by both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the Government Accountability Office to shift vaccine coverage in Medicare from Part D to Part B. While there are many diseases and conditions that we have yet to prevent, there are those for which we already have vaccines. We must do more to ensure that these vaccines are available and accessed to protect the health of Americans. This legislation has been endorsed by Every Child By Two, the Immunization Action Coalition, Partnership for Prevention, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Zero Tolerance for Veteran Homelessness Act. This bill enhances and expands the assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless. It is one of our Nation's great tragedies that on any given night, according to estimates by the Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 67,000 veterans are homeless. The Department further estimates that about 145,000 veterans experience homelessness each year and that nearly 1/5th of all homeless people in the United States are veterans. These numbers are expected to climb as our service members who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan return home to face tough economic conditions. Indeed, some veterans return from deployments to discover that the skills they have honed in their military service can be difficult to transfer to jobs in the private sector. Others struggle with physical or mental wounds of war. Still others return to communities that lack safe, affordable housing. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve our country, and it is especially important to honor our commitment to them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is certainly a part of that commitment, providing benefits, medical care, support, and a sense of community to homeless veterans. However, a number of other federal agencies provide service to veterans, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this legislation builds on that existing infrastructure. Many programs through HUD and the VA are already helping homeless veterans with transitional housing, health care and rehabilitation services, and employment assistance. However, a more comprehensive and coordinated approach would strengthen these programs and help prevent more at-risk veterans from becoming homeless. First, this legislation would make it easier for non-profits to apply for capital grants through the VA's grants and per diem program to build transitional housing and other facilities for veterans. This would streamline the process for non-profit organizations to be able to use financing from other sources to break ground on new housing construction. This is particularly important in the current economy, when non-profits are stretched and have to be more creative than ever to fund new capital projects. Second, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act would create a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD. The Special Assistant would ensure that veterans have access to HUD's existing programs and work to remove any barriers. The Special Assistant would also serve as a liaison between HUD and the VA, helping to connect and coordinate the services the two departments provide. Additionally, this legislation recognizes the need to measure progress of efforts to combat homelessness. The bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan with recommendations on how to end homelessness among veterans. Establishing a plan with appropriate benchmarks will enable the VA to more easily track progress towards this important goal. Only by working together, across the federal government and in partnership with non-profits and local housing authorities, will we be able to comprehensively help homeless veterans and reach those in danger of becoming homeless. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they and their families have safe, affordable places to live and to provide the services and benefits they have earned. The nation's brave veterans deserve nothing less. I am pleased that provisions from this bill, which follows on legislation I introduced last Congress, have been included in comprehensive legislation that is moving through the Veterans Affairs Committee. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting these important efforts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Zero Tolerance for Veteran Homelessness Act. This bill enhances and expands the assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless. It is one of our Nation's great tragedies that on any given night, according to estimates by the Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 67,000 veterans are homeless. The Department further estimates that about 145,000 veterans experience homelessness each year and that nearly 1/5th of all homeless people in the United States are veterans. These numbers are expected to climb as our service members who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan return home to face tough economic conditions. Indeed, some veterans return from deployments to discover that the skills they have honed in their military service can be difficult to transfer to jobs in the private sector. Others struggle with physical or mental wounds of war. Still others return to communities that lack safe, affordable housing. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve our country, and it is especially important to honor our commitment to them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is certainly a part of that commitment, providing benefits, medical care, support, and a sense of community to homeless veterans. However, a number of other federal agencies provide service to veterans, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this legislation builds on that existing infrastructure. Many programs through HUD and the VA are already helping homeless veterans with transitional housing, health care and rehabilitation services, and employment assistance. However, a more comprehensive and coordinated approach would strengthen these programs and help prevent more at-risk veterans from becoming homeless. First, this legislation would make it easier for non-profits to apply for capital grants through the VA's grants and per diem program to build transitional housing and other facilities for veterans. This would streamline the process for non-profit organizations to be able to use financing from other sources to break ground on new housing construction. This is particularly important in the current economy, when non-profits are stretched and have to be more creative than ever to fund new capital projects. Second, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act would create a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD. The Special Assistant would ensure that veterans have access to HUD's existing programs and work to remove any barriers. The Special Assistant would also serve as a liaison between HUD and the VA, helping to connect and coordinate the services the two departments provide. Additionally, this legislation recognizes the need to measure progress of efforts to combat homelessness. The bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan with recommendations on how to end homelessness among veterans. Establishing a plan with appropriate benchmarks will enable the VA to more easily track progress towards this important goal. Only by working together, across the federal government and in partnership with non-profits and local housing authorities, will we be able to comprehensively help homeless veterans and reach those in danger of becoming homeless. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they and their families have safe, affordable places to live and to provide the services and benefits they have earned. The nation's brave veterans deserve nothing less. I am pleased that provisions from this bill, which follows on legislation I introduced last Congress, have been included in comprehensive legislation that is moving through the Veterans Affairs Committee. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting these important efforts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, also known as the farm bill, makes some strides in reforming agriculture policy and subsidies. However, in my view, these reforms are not sufficient. Moreover, the bill contains cuts to nutrition and conservation programs and changes to eligibility for rural communities that when taken together make it worse than current law. As such, I will oppose the bill, although I do so reluctantly. Indeed, despite my conclusions, I commend Chairwoman Stabenow for crafting a bill that delivers $23.6 billion in taxpayer savings over 10 years, cracks down on abuse, and eliminates egregious payments to nonfarmers, millionaire farmers, and farmers for crops they aren't growing. The bill also makes several positive changes to programs important to my home State of Rhode Island that help small farms, farmers markets, and local food production. Rhode Island is a model example of the small and local farm movement. Since 2002, the number of farms has increased from 858 to 1,220 farms, whereas the average farm size in the State has actually decreased from 71 to 56 acres. That is why I am pleased that the bill includes many measures from Senator Sherrod Brown's Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act that I cosponsored and increased funding for specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. The bill also initiates new hunger-free communities incentive grants by providing funding of $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets by SNAP participants. A similar privately funded program has already been successfully implemented in Rhode Island where every $5 in SNAP benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to receive an additional $2 in fruits and vegetables. It is good to see the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to help low-income families have access to nutritious local foods. Another positive measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions. The bill also doubles mandatory funding for this program. However, as a recent Washington Post editorial stated, ``The current bill achieves some reform. There is still much more to be done.'' While the current bill cuts direct payments by $44.6 billion, it restores $28.5 billion of those cuts by creating a new market-based program called Agriculture Risk Coverage and adds an additional $5 billion for crop insurance. Indeed, many of the reform measures in the bill do not go as far as those in the Lugar-Lautenberg Fresh Act of 2007, which I cosponsored during the last farm bill debate. At the time, that measure would have increased funding by $2.5 billion for nutrition programs, SNAP, and specialty crops, and $1 billion more for conservation programs. In contrast, the Senate bill we are currently debating cuts SNAP by $4.5 billion and conservation programs by $6.4 billion. The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging for Rhode Island, where roughly 1 in 6 people receives SNAP benefits and the unemployment rate remains at a too-high rate of 11 percent, the second highest in the country. SNAP usage is unfortunately very high right now as Americans are struggling along with the economy to get back on track. No one wants to see such a high need, but at the same time SNAP assistance is the lifeline for these families to be able to put food on the table. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle shouldn't be trying to cut these funds; they should be working with us instead of thwarting our efforts to pass meaningful jobs bills that could help many of these SNAP beneficiaries find work and lessen their need for assistance. That is why I cosponsored and voted in favor of Senator Gillibrand's amendment that would have restored the nutrition cuts, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates would result in an average benefit cut of $90 per month for 500,000 households nationwide. According to RI Department of Human Services, approximately 20,000 households could see an average SNAP cut of $95 per month if the cuts were implemented. The Gillibrand amendment was paid for by reducing the subsidies that the Federal Government pays the crop insurance companies for administration and operating expenses and lowering their guaranteed rate of return from their current level of 14 percent to 12 percent. That is certainly a reasonable rate of return in this economy. I was very disappointed that this amendment was not agreed to as this proposed cut of $4.5 billion starts us down the wrong path in future farm bill negotiations with the House, which is expected to have even deeper SNAP cuts in their bill. Another provision I am concerned could negatively impact Rhode Island is the change in the definition of rural that could decrease the eligibility for Rhode Island communities to be able to apply for loans and grants under Rural Development programs. I appreciate Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts working with Members from affected States to include in the managers' package a 3-year grandfathering of existing communities and an important stipulation that thereafter communities shall remain eligible unless ruled otherwise by the Secretary of Agriculture. However, the change in the definition does not completely remove the uncertainty for Rhode Island rural communities to be eligible in the future as they look to make needed improvements to their water and waste disposal systems or community facilities. We need to help out the small farmers and businesses in this country, not continue to help the large, wealthy farmers. And we certainly should not pay for expansive farm programs by placing additional burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet. It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this bill in its current form. While I fear the bill will only get worse as negotiations begin with the House, I certainly hope the matters that I have raised can be addressed during that process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, 1972 was a watershed year for expanding educational opportunities in this country. The Education Amendments of 1972 included title IX--now known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act--guaranteeing educational opportunities for women and girls in federally supported educational institutions. But 1972 also saw, within the Education Amendments, the creation of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant. Today we know it as the Pell Grant. It was named in honor and in recognition of the extraordinary vision and service of my colleague, my predecessor from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell. He authored this provision. Forty years later, we can see how these two key changes to our educational laws have transformed our Nation and transformed the aspirations of millions of Americans. It is also a good time to reflect on the challenges that remain and to renew our commitment to fulfilling the promise of opportunity represented in the Education Amendments of 1972. Senator Pell's vision was that no student with the talent, drive, and desire should be denied the opportunity for a post-secondary education solely because of a lack of financial resources. Pell grants have opened the doors to a college education for millions of Americans. In the 1973-1974 academic year--the first year students received grants--176,000 Pell grants were awarded. In the school year that began in the fall of 2010, that number grew to over 9.6 million. Pell grants constitute approximately 23 percent of all Federal student aid, which includes grants, loans, and work study programs. The Pell grant is the cornerstone of our Federal student aid programs. For needy students, it is the foundation for making college affordable. Unfortunately, reduced State support for higher education and rising college costs have eroded that foundation. In 1976, the maximum Pell grant was $1,400, which was enough to cover 72 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. In 2010, the maximum Pell Grant was $5,550, which was only enough to cover 34 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. We have seen an erosion of the buying power of the Pell grant. If we were matching the effort that he initiated in the 1970s, we would be providing more opportunities and more support for college students across this Nation. Senator Pell understood that grant aid was critical for low-income students and families. The goal was to minimize the need for loans. Frankly, back in the 1970s, most young people with a Pell grant-- working through the summer, and working the extra hours they had to during the academic year--could pay their way through school, leave school without huge debt. Today, regrettably, there are students graduating from school with $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 worth of debt because the Pell grants have not kept up, because college costs have accelerated, and because they have been forced to borrow. Today, low-income students and middle- income students rely heavily on student loans to pay for college. And we are seeing another burden; and, frankly, this ripples throughout our economy. In the 1970s and 1980s, if you left college owing a few thousand dollars, you could pay that off very quickly. So by your late twenties, you were ready to settle down, to buy the house. Today, we have a generation of students who are struggling with debt that might take them 10 or more years to pay off. Effectively, they cannot begin to buy the home, to settle down, to do the things that are so important to our overall economy. Unless we are able to come to an agreement over the next several days, we also face the prospect of seeing the rate on subsidized student loans double by July 1. That would deal another blow to moderate- and low-income families. Leader Reid has proposed a very reasonable compromise. I hope that the Republicans will let that compromise go forward. I am hopeful my Republican colleagues can use this opportunity not only to continue to keep the lending rate low for Stafford loans but renew our own pledge on the Pell grant. It would be ironic to see, on the 40th anniversary of the Pell grant, a further undermining of the ability of middle- to low-income Americans to go to college. In fact, this should be an opportunity to do much more. Senator Pell's words ring as true today as when he spoke them in 1995, one of the last years of his tenure in the Senate. In his words: As I have stated on many occasions, few things in life are more important than the education of our children. They are the living legacy that we leave behind and their education determines the future of the American Nation. . . . He continued. . . . Every day families are making decisions about sending their children to college. Certainly one of, if not the major obstacle they face is how to pay for college. The loan is their last resort. It provides the extra but necessary money they must have after exhausting their own resources and obtaining any grants for which their children might be eligible. Increasing the amount that children owe after graduation may well place the dream of a college education beyond their reach. That, to my mind, would be a tragedy of truly immense proportions. . . . Senator Pell was right. Increasing student debt, especially during these difficult economic times, would be a tragedy for students, their families, and our Nation. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle, all my colleagues, to work together to prevent an increase in the student loan interest rate from doubling on July 1. That would, indeed, be a fitting tribute to Senator Pell on the 40th anniversary of the Pell grant.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we are running out of time. The interest rate on subsidized student loans is set to double in just over 2 weeks. This will hit middle-class families hard at a time when they are dealing with the devastating effects of the most severe recession that we have witnessed in our lifetime. Earlier this week the Federal Reserve reported additional sobering news. Between 2007 and 2010, median family wealth declined by nearly 40 percent. Median family income declined by nearly 8 percent, and the share of families with education-related debt rose from 15.2 percent to 19.2 percent. This is no time to increase the interest rate on need-based student loans on the more than 7,000 moderate and low-income students who rely on them to go to college. What we have seen is a middle-class that in terms of wealth and income has been shrinking dramatically. Ironically--perhaps not ironically--the very wealthy have seen income and wealth increase. However, for the vast majority of Americans, they have seen their economic position deteriorate. Closely allied with economic opportunity and the idea of making your way in this country is the necessity to go on to higher education. We have been preaching that. That is what our parents told us, go on to college. They said, when you go to college, you will be prepared to go into the workforce, increase your family income, contribute more to your country. Yet now we see a situation where not only is there a compression in middle-income wealth and income, there is also a staggering amount of student debt. It is almost $1 trillion. In fact, I heard reports suggesting that it eclipsed credit card debt in terms of what households in America are holding. There is a generation of college students who have graduated and are struggling with this debt. The worst thing we can do now is double the interest rate on those who need more loans to finish their school and put an even greater burden on them and their family as they go forward. We need to pass this legislation that will prevent the doubling of interest on student loans, and we need to do it before July 1. We are looking at a period of time when interest rates are very low. The Federal Reserve is charging financial institutions somewhere around 1 percent or less to borrow money, and yet we are going to students and saying, the interest rate used to be 3.4 percent, now it will be 6.8 percent. That seems not only incongruous but incomprehensible, that we will allow the interest rate to double, particularly in this environment. Students' families can't afford this increase. They are stretched too thin already. Every statistic--forget the statistics. Talk to people back home in New Hampshire or Rhode Island or New Jersey, and they will tell you it is tough. There are children who are moving back in with their families because they are struggling to find a good job so they can pay their student debt and get by. This is not the time to double the interest rate on these loans. It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of the future of this country. It is an issue of avoiding innumerable personal tragedies. We were just on a conference call when a woman called in and said she is involved with many students who have graduated in the last few years and they are literally at their wit's end that they can't pay their debts. They don't have jobs that will give them the chance to move on. They are saddled with debt. How will they even begin to think of starting a family and buying a home? That was something my generation sort of took for granted in their mid twenties. We have to deal with this issue. This is the first step. According to Georgetown University Center on Education Workforce, over 60 percent of jobs will require some postsecondary education by 2018. No longer is higher education some nice thing to do, it has become a necessity to get jobs that will provide for a family. Yet in 2010 only 38.3 percent of working-age adults have a 2-year or 4-year degree. So we know there is a gap already. We have 40 percent of people with a postsecondary education, and experts are telling us we will need 60 percent by 2018, and that is just 6 years away. And we are proposing to make it harder to pay for college? Again, it does not make any sense. That is why last January, working with my colleague Joe Courtney in the House of Representatives, we introduced the Student Loan Affordability Act. We saw this coming. We knew we had to prevent this increase. Initially the response from our colleagues on the other side was, no way. In fact, they voted for two budgets that assumed the interest rate would double, therefore giving more resources for tax cuts and other preferences that certainly won't be as effective to help the middle class as giving a youngster a chance to go to college. But we continued to push. With the President and students and families and student organizations across the country, I think we have made some progress. We have seen at least a change in rhetoric. Governor Romney said he was in favor of keeping the rates low. There has been no specifications on how to do this or urging on how to do this, but at least conceptually there seems to be agreement on that one point. The Republican leaders then followed suit saying, yes, we have to keep this interest rate from doubling. But we have not seen the actions to match these words. They initially made a proposal to keep the interest rates low by going after preventive health care, and that is a nonstarter. I hope we all understand that, one, if we are going to improve the quality of health care in this country, we have to emphasize preventive care. By the way, if we are going to bend that proverbial cost curve, we better start to do more prevention than treatment because it is a lot more cost effective to prevent than treat disease. Then they proposed another offset that would take resources from low- and middle-income families through various programs, taking from one pocket of a low- and middle-income family and giving it to them in the education pocket. That didn't work. They continued to resist a proposal we made to pay for it because we do understand in this environment we have to be fiscally responsible. We proposed to close one of the most egregious loopholes in the Tax Code. There is a provision that allows high-paid lobbyists, high-paid lawyers, high-paid consultants to avoid their payroll taxes, Medicare taxes, and other taxes by forming a subchapter S corporation. At the end of the year they give themselves a dividend, which is not wages subject to these taxes, and is actually treated at a very preferential tax rate. This is such an outrageous loophole that it was condemned by Bob Novak, late conservative columnist. It was condemned by the Wall Street Journal. It was condemned by everyone, but it was not something they could accept. Well, we have moved forward. We have put a new offer on the table, led by Leader Harry Reid, and that would effectively help with respect to pension liabilities. First, it would give employers more predictability in terms of their contribution by allowing them to smooth out the interest rate which they assume in their contributions to the fund. If you are trying to fund a pension liability over many years, you have to put in principal, but then you have to assume an interest rate to see if that principal will grow to an adequate amount. So the present law looks back about 2 years, and this is a remarkably low interest rate environment. So with low interest rates, they have to put more principal in. This way they could look much farther back, smooth it out, and take a more realistic interest rate that will reflect not just the last 2 years, which one would argue is very exceptional in terms of interest rates, but look at something that is more representative of the 25 or so years that they must provide for in their pension fund. In fact, this is a provision that employers think is very important to them. The other side is to provide an increase of premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the insurance fund for defined benefit pension plans. Too often today the PBGC has to step in where companies go bankrupt and their pension funds are not adequate to pay for even part of the bona fide liabilities that they owe to workers, many of whom spent years in their employ and are depending on their pension. This is a very balanced approach. It is an approach in the past that has had bipartisan support. I hope we are reaching a point now where we can come together. This is an incredibly difficult issue for families across this country. I have heard pleas from Rhode Island families to fix this. I received letters and calls. One of them came in and said: Please continue to fight for keeping the interest rate of Stafford loans down to 3.4 percent. It is difficult enough to pay for college. With unemployment so high for recent college graduates, our financial future seems bleak. My parents and I have taken loans to pay for my and my sister's tuition. We are from a middle class family. We appreciate your support and help with this issue. Those words are more eloquent than mine. Let's just get this done. We have no time to waste. July 1 is almost upon us. We have 2 weeks. Let's come together. Let's help people across this country and help our country. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.