Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 437, submitted earlier today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until Thursday, April 26, at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, under the previous order; that after the remarks of the two leaders, the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 45 minutes and the majority controlling the second 45 minutes; and that at 11:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that when the Senate resumes legislative session, the majority leader will be recognized.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, there will be two votes tomorrow at noon on confirmation of the Costa and Guaderrama nominations.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 438, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Lautenberg.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, along with the Presiding Officer, my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, to pay my respect and honor the life of Sergeant Maxwell R. Dorley, a distinguished and beloved member of the Providence Police Department, who passed away tragically in the line of duty. Sergeant Dorley's personal story, which began in Liberia is another example of the extraordinary contribution of the Liberian community to the State of Rhode Island, along with recently deceased Lance Corporal Tarwoe of the U.S. Marines. Sergeant Dorley's story is also another example of inspiration and hope for all of us. At the young age of 7, Sergeant Dorley followed his aunt, Hawa Vincent, to Providence, beginning his own chapter of the American dream, and he wrote a remarkable chapter in that great story of America. Sergeant Dorley attended Mount Pleasant High School, and not only graduated at the top of his class earning admission to Brown University, but he also befriended Kou, who would become his wife and partner for 27 years. His love and devotion to his family was so deep and genuine that when their first child, Amanda, was on her way, Sergeant Dorley declined admission to Brown University and began working four jobs so he could support his new family. At this early stage in his life, Sergeant Dorley chose to prioritize his new family over himself. And as he did so many times throughout his life, Sergeant Dorley thought about others before he thought of himself. His example of hard work--four jobs to support the family--is the story of America, coming here from someplace else, working as hard as you can to build a strong family and contribute to a strong community. From helping his family pay off the notes on their cars to gathering old and used police uniforms for his fellow police officers in Liberia, Sergeant Dorley exemplified the best of what we expect from our public servants--a deep commitment to serving others for the greater good. While terribly tragic, Sergeant Dorley passed away last Thursday doing what he knew best, helping others by trying to come to the aid of his Providence Police Officers, Edwin Kemble and Tony Hampton, who were trying to break up a fight. Today, we offer our deepest condolences, and our thoughts are with all of Sergeant Dorley's family, friends, and colleagues, but especially with his mother Miatta who is traveling from Liberia, his wife Kou, and daughter Amanda, his son Robert, and all of his beloved family. We join them in celebrating Sergeant Dorley's many contributions. Despite his short time with us, he gave us much, and we honor his memory and his service to the people of Providence as a Providence Police Officer. The loss of Sergeant Dorley is also a reminder of the great sacrifice and incredible courage of all of our Police Officers who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to preserve the peace and stability that allows us to enjoy our own lives. Today, we especially salute the service and sacrifice of Sergeant Dorley, and we honor the legacy he leaves of serving others and prioritizing the greater good over his own personal interest. We have indeed lost a remarkable individual and a great example of selfless service. Again, we offer our deepest condolences to his family. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on July 1, approximately 7.4 million college students will see the interest rate double on their student loans unless Congress takes action. For every year we fail to act, borrowers will pay $1,000 more in interest on their loans. In January, I introduced S. 2051, the Student Loan Affordability Act, to maintain the subsidized student loan interest rate at the current 3.4 percent. Today, I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, in sponsoring the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. This legislation is a fully paid for, 1-year extension of the 3.4-percent interest rate for subsidized student loans. There is bipartisan support for keeping interest rates low. Governor Romney has endorsed a temporary extension of the current 3.4 percent rate. Two-thirds of Republican Senators voted to cut the interest rate to 3.4 percent under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. The Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act will maintain the interest rate at 3.4 percent for another year. The 1-year extension is fully paid for by eliminating a tax loophole that has allowed some shareholder-employees of so-called S corporations to avoid paying their fair share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. This offset will apply only to a subset of S corporations that are professional service businesses--those that derive 75 percent of their gross income from the services of three or fewer shareholders or where the S corporation is a partner in a partnership whose primary activity is professional services. Additionally, the offset only impacts filers with income over $250,000, filing jointly, or $200,000, single filer. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that in the 2003 and 2004 tax years, individuals used S corporations to underreport over $23 billion in wage income. The median misreported amount was $20,127. Closing this loophole will fully offset the $6 billion cost of a 1- year extension of the interest rate and would make the Tax Code more fair. It is a win-win proposition. Some may say that the Federal Government cannot afford to forgo the higher interest payments because of the budget deficit. However, this legislation is fully paid for and should garner support from both sides of the aisle. It is a matter of priorities. We need to put the interests of middle- class Americans ahead of those who would avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Student loan debt affects millions of Americans. Two-thirds of the class of 2010 graduated owing student loans, with an average debt of over $25,000. Student loan debt has passed the $1 trillion mark-- exceeding credit card debt. Moreover, the students and families we are trying to help with the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike have demonstrated economic need. Indeed, nearly 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. The question before us is, Will we make the student loan debt burden worse by allowing interest rates to double or will we take action to protect low and moderate income students? We need to act fast. July 1 is only 66 days away. I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator Sherrod Brown, Chairman Harkin, and me in supporting the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, the Presiding Officer, to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Abraham Tarwoe, a Rhode Islander who served in the U.S. Marine Corps. On April 12, Lance Corporal Tarwoe was killed while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. A memorial service will be held on Saturday in Rhode Island to honor his selfless sacrifice, and he will then be laid to rest in his native home of Liberia. When he was about 7 years old, Lance Corporal Tarwoe left Liberia and started a new life in the United States. He was one among thousands of Liberians who came to the United States seeking safety from a civil war. We are proud that so many of these brave individuals and their families now call Rhode Island their home, and our State continues to be enriched by this strong community. Lance Corporal Tarwoe enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in June 2009. He was on his second deployment to Afghanistan, assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, where he was serving as a mortarman and had additional duties as a military dog handler. Each generation of Americans is called upon to protect and sustain our democracy, and among our greatest heroes are the men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation and have sacrificed for our country to keep it safe and to keep it free. It is our duty to protect the freedom they sacrificed their lives for through our service, our citizenship. We must continue to keep their memories alive and honor their heroism, not simply by our words but by our deeds as citizens of this great country. Today, our thoughts are with Lance Corporal Tarwoe's loving family in Liberia, Famatta and Abraham Kar, his brother Randall, his wife Juah, and his son Avant, and all his family, friends, and his comrades-in- arms. We join them in commemorating his sacrifice and honoring his example of selfless service, love, courage, and devotion to the Marines with whom he served and the people of Afghanistan he was trying to help. Lance Corporal Tarwoe is one among many Rhode Islanders who have proven their loyalty, their integrity, and their personal courage by giving the last full measure of their lives in service to our country in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe. Today, we honor his memory and the memory of all those who have served and sacrificed as he did. He has joined a distinguished roll of honor, including many Rhode Islanders who have served and sacrificed since September 11, 2001. All of these men and women who have given their lives in the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq have done a great service to the Nation. It is a roll of honor. It is a roll that Lance Corporal Tarwoe joins, and it should be for us a roll not just to recognize and remember but to recommit, to try in some small way to match their great sacrifice for this great Nation. In Lance Corporal Tarwoe's situation, it also should remind us that this young man, born in Liberia, who came as a child and to Rhode Island, demonstrates to us all that being an American is about what is in your heart, not necessarily where you were born or what language you may have spoken as a child. It is about believing in America--believing so much that you would give your life to defend the values that we so much cherish.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the leader for yielding.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, the power of Congress to establish post offices is enshrined in our Constitution, and the U.S. Postal Service has been a valued institution since the earliest days of our Republic. Today, the Postal Service accounts for millions of jobs nationwide. It is essential that we have a viable and effective Postal Service in the long term. Unfortunately, the Postal Service is currently facing critical financial challenges that have been brought on by a number of factors, including the movement to electronic forms of communication. This situation requires immediate attention of Congress. The bill we are voting on today, the 21st Century Postal Service Act, is not perfect. I am particularly disappointed that the Senate did not agree to an amendment that I supported that would have preserved 6-day delivery, and I am concerned that a permanent switch to 5-day delivery could lead to the further erosion of jobs and the undermining of the Postal Service. However, it is clear that we cannot afford to do nothing. Congressional inaction, coupled with the extreme measures being pushed by the Postal Service's leadership, will result in drastic changes that would seriously undermine our Nation's mail system, beginning with the closure of a number of post offices and mail processing facilities across the country. I am concerned that the changes sought by the Postal Service's leadership will severely undermine the Postal Service's long-term viability and threaten thousands of good jobs. We cannot allow that to happen. The 21st Century Postal Service Act includes a number of important provisions designed to put the Postal Service back on solid footing. It will allow for the refunding of overpayments by the Postal Service to the Federal Employees Retirement System and ease the prefunding requirement for the Postal Service's retiree health benefits. It also strengthens the review process for closing post offices and facilities and encourages innovation by the Postal Service to improve its business model with the goal of returning to profitability. I am also concerned that the version of postal reform legislation that is eventually passed by the House of Representatives could prove to be very damaging. When the Senate considers the final version of postal reform legislation that is negotiated by the two Chambers, I will carefully consider the changes that have been made before lending my support to its passage.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 26, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 509 and 510; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; and that any related statements be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am honored to be here today to welcome His Eminence Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan. Archbishop Choloyan serves as the Prelate of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. He has led the Eastern Prelacy since 1998, and he plays a significant role as the spiritual shepherd for several thousand Armenian Americans from Maine to Florida and west to Texas. In Rhode Island, we are extremely blessed to have the Archbishop as such a strong spiritual and community leader. We continue to benefit from his wisdom, his compassion, and his generous spirit. It is an honor to have him here today as we not only listen to his moving and thoughtful words, but also as we commemorate the 97th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Ninety-seven years ago, on April 24, 1915, the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire summoned and executed over 200 Armenian community leaders and intellectuals, beginning an 8-year campaign of oppression and massacre. By 1923, nearly 1\1/2\ million Armenians were killed, and over a half million survivors were exiled. These atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor and, indeed, throughout the world. The survivors of the Armenian genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit, their steadfast resolve, and their deep commitment to their faith and their families. They went on to enrich their countries of emigration, including the United States, with their centuries-old customs, their culture, and their innate decency. In fact, not only were the Ottomans unable to destroy the Armenian Empire, they strengthened it. And the participation of Armenians worldwide has made this world a much better place. Indeed, my home State is a much better place. That is why today we not only commemorate this grave tragedy but celebrate the traditions, the contributions, and the extraordinary hard work and decency of the Armenian Americans and Armenians throughout the world. This year I once again join my colleagues in encouraging the United States to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Denial of this history is not consistent with our country's sensitivity to human rights and our dedication to the highest and noblest principles that should govern the world. We must continue to educate our young people against this type of hatred and oppression so we can seek to prevent such crimes against humanity in the future. It was indeed an honor to be here to listen to the wise words of the Archbishop, to hear his prayer, his reflection, and to go forth knowing that he is a powerful force in our country for tolerance and decency. I thank him for being here today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson in introducing the Tanning Transparency and Notification Act, or the TAN Act. This legislation is a continuation of an initiative that we worked on together five years ago during the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, FDAAA, of 2007. That initiative required the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to issue a report to Congress on whether the labeling requirements for indoor tanning devices provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the development of irreversible damage to the eyes and skin, including skin cancer. We called for this report in 2007 because the FDA had not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. The FDA still has not acted and we believe that users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. While the American Academy of Dermatology, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, WHO, continue to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds, this message and up-to-date information about the risks of indoor tanning are still not being adequately provided to consumers. Not surprisingly, the FDA found in its report to Congress that updating current labeling requirements for tanning beds would better protect consumers from irreversible skin damage. This is an excerpt from the FDA's own report: Based on its analysis of the results of the consumer study required by section 230 of FDAAA, FDA has determined that there are warnings that are capable of adequately communicating the risks of indoor tanning, and that a modified warning statement label may more effectively convey these risks than the current labeling requirements. FDA has also determined that changes to the positioning requirements for the warning statement label may communicate such risks more effectively. Unfortunately, the FDA has not heeded its own advice. Tanning bed labels remain unchanged and skin cancer rates continue to rise. This year, approximately 131,810 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the United States, and nearly 9,180 people will die from melanoma. Some of these cases result from the use of tanning beds. Two million Americans, approximately 70 percent of whom are girls and women, visit a tanning salon each day. The WHO reports that the risk of cutaneous melanoma increases by 75 percent when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age. Better informing these individuals about the incidence of melanoma, and increasing transparency and improving notification about the risks of indoor tanning are all ways to reduce skin cancer rates. The Tanning Transparency and Notification Act would require the FDA to carry out the recommendations in its report and update the labeling requirements for tanning beds. Initiatives like this can make a difference in the health of Americans. Indeed, just last year, the FDA finalized critical regulations--at my and others' urging--that were 30 years in the making regarding sunscreen labeling. Providing consumers with critical information about the risks of indoor and outdoor tanning can help better protect them against skin cancer. I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the labeling of indoor tanning beds and continuing efforts to combat skin cancer.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson in introducing the Tanning Transparency and Notification Act, or the TAN Act. This legislation is a continuation of an initiative that we worked on together five years ago during the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, FDAAA, of 2007. That initiative required the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to issue a report to Congress on whether the labeling requirements for indoor tanning devices provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the development of irreversible damage to the eyes and skin, including skin cancer. We called for this report in 2007 because the FDA had not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. The FDA still has not acted and we believe that users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. While the American Academy of Dermatology, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, WHO, continue to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds, this message and up-to-date information about the risks of indoor tanning are still not being adequately provided to consumers. Not surprisingly, the FDA found in its report to Congress that updating current labeling requirements for tanning beds would better protect consumers from irreversible skin damage. This is an excerpt from the FDA's own report: Based on its analysis of the results of the consumer study required by section 230 of FDAAA, FDA has determined that there are warnings that are capable of adequately communicating the risks of indoor tanning, and that a modified warning statement label may more effectively convey these risks than the current labeling requirements. FDA has also determined that changes to the positioning requirements for the warning statement label may communicate such risks more effectively. Unfortunately, the FDA has not heeded its own advice. Tanning bed labels remain unchanged and skin cancer rates continue to rise. This year, approximately 131,810 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the United States, and nearly 9,180 people will die from melanoma. Some of these cases result from the use of tanning beds. Two million Americans, approximately 70 percent of whom are girls and women, visit a tanning salon each day. The WHO reports that the risk of cutaneous melanoma increases by 75 percent when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age. Better informing these individuals about the incidence of melanoma, and increasing transparency and improving notification about the risks of indoor tanning are all ways to reduce skin cancer rates. The Tanning Transparency and Notification Act would require the FDA to carry out the recommendations in its report and update the labeling requirements for tanning beds. Initiatives like this can make a difference in the health of Americans. Indeed, just last year, the FDA finalized critical regulations--at my and others' urging--that were 30 years in the making regarding sunscreen labeling. Providing consumers with critical information about the risks of indoor and outdoor tanning can help better protect them against skin cancer. I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the labeling of indoor tanning beds and continuing efforts to combat skin cancer.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are engaged in a very important debate while the clock is ticking on literally the future of the postal service. I want to alert my colleagues to another issue that is rapidly approaching. On July 1, if we do not act, the interest rate on subsidized student loans will be doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, impacting more than 7 million students, including more than 36,000 in Rhode Island. I have introduced legislation--the Student Loan Affordability Act--to stop the doubling of student loan interest rates as of July 1 of this year. Many of my colleagues have already joined me, including Senators Begich, Sherrod Brown, Durbin, Franken, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Leahy, Murray, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden, as cosponsors of the legislation. I thank them and urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. If we don't act, the average borrower will have to pay approximately $2,800 more in interest on their loans. Students who take out the maximum $23,000 in subsidized student loans could owe approximately $5,000 more over the 10-year repayment period. Students and families simply cannot absorb these costs in this tough economy and in the face of rising tuition and dwindling State support for higher education. This particular measure will hit middle-income families very hard because they are the ones who rely significantly on these subsidized student loans. The subsidized student loan program is a need-based financial aid program. To get the low rate and the in-school interest subsidy, students must demonstrate economic need. Nearly 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for these loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. That is literally the middle class and the working poor of this country. This is an issue of fairness. At a time, ironically, of historically low interest rates, when the Federal Reserve has set the target interest rate for Federal funds between 0 and .25 percent--the Fed is lending money to banks at near zero percent. We, at the same time, are asking middle-income families to pay twice as much, 6.8 percent--a huge discrepancy--in the loans they pay for education. We also recognize--all of us--that the key to our future is an educated America. It seems that given the interest rate environment, where banks can get money overnight at near zero percent interest and we are telling students they have to pay 6.8, not 3.4, it doesn't make sense. It is in our national interest to ensure that students not only get educated but don't leave school with a mountain of debt. We need more students graduating from our colleges, universities, and professional schools because that will power our economy in the future. We won't be globally competitive if we don't do this. In 1980 the gap between the lifetime earnings of a college graduate and high school graduate was 40 percent. In 2010 it was 74 percent. By 2025 it is projected to be 96 percent. The message is clear: If you cannot get postsecondary education, you are virtually going to be condemned to being far behind in terms of income and ability to support your family. Researchers have found that since at least the 1980s, we haven't been producing a sufficient number of college-educated workers to meet the demand of industry. If you go to businesses throughout Rhode Island and the Nation, they will tell you they have jobs for which they cannot find the people with the high-level skills needed to fill them. So every available criterion argues strenuously for this legislation. In Rhode Island, we have 41 percent of our working adults who have college degrees. By 2018 it is estimated that 61 percent of the jobs there will require some postsecondary education. We have a 20-percent gap that has already opened in the next 4 years, and we have to fill it. The wrong way to fill it is to make college more expensive. I recently had a roundtable with all of the presidents of my universities and colleges in Rhode Island. They said that keeping this interest rate relatively low is absolutely critical. They are all worried about the fact that by July 1, unless we act, we will see a doubling of this interest rate. Frankly, this is an issue that has had bipartisan support. In 2007, on a very strong, bipartisan basis, we enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, cutting the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. In the Senate, the legislation passed on a 79-to-12 vote, with more than two-thirds of Republican Senators--34 out of 49--supporting it. President George W. Bush signed it into law. We have to revive, before July 1, that bipartisan spirit that motivated the initial legislation so that we can avoid doubling the interest rate college students will pay for these loans. It is a matter of major priorities for us--not just for a short time but for the future of the country. We have 75 days. The clock is ticking. We have to move. If we don't, millions of middle-class students and families will be denied the opportunity to effectively get a higher education. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, BPDCA. This legislation will ensure that children are prioritized in the drug development process, as well as continue the increase in the number and quality of medical devices developed for use in children. I am particularly pleased that this bill has the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Indeed, drugs and devices work differently in children than in adults, and consequently, must be studied specifically for use in children. However, due to the fact that pediatric trials can be costly, take several years, and offer less of a return on investment, drug companies weren't initiating these trials. As a result, nearly 80 percent of drugs were used off-label in children. This alarming statistic garnered the attention of pediatricians, medical experts, families, and ultimately, Congress. In 1997, Congress provided pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to invest in pediatric research through the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA. In 2003, Congress passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act to begin requiring pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. Since the enactment of these laws, 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information and there has been a decline in the number of drugs used off-label in children from 80 to 50 percent. However, these laws will expire on October 1 unless Congress passes legislation to renew them. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act would ensure that these laws are never at risk of expiring again. Laws that examine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices in adults are permanent. Children should have the same assurances. By making these laws permanent, pharmaceutical companies will also gain the certainty they need to continue wisely investing in these studies. In making these laws permanent, we must not miss an opportunity to improve their benefits for children to ensure that more robust and timely information about the use of drugs and devices can guide clinical care. This legislation does just that. First, it would ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the drug development process. Currently, pediatric study plans can be submitted to the FDA when a company submits its new drug application. This can be a very stressful time for a company and, as such, pediatric study plans are often left to the last minute. This has traditionally resulted in insufficient and inappropriate study plans, as well as delays of important pediatric data. Our legislation would require companies to submit a more robust pediatric study plan at the end of phase two in the drug development process. By this time in the process, a company already has performed the requisite clinical trial or trials in adults and has a better understanding of a drug's safety and efficacy, as well as dosing requirements. Moreover, experts at the FDA initially tried to require companies to submit a pediatric study plan at this time in the drug development process in a regulation that was struck down by the courts. However, the rationale and justification behind the regulation helped inform the drafting of this legislation and led us to believe that companies should submit their initial pediatric study plan to the FDA at the end of phase two. The legislation would also ensure that pediatric studies are actually completed. An alarming 78 percent of pediatric studies that were scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are currently late or were submitted late. While it is appropriate for some studies to take longer than expected and we wouldn't want a pediatric study to hold up the approval of a drug for use in adults it is unacceptable for companies to fail to complete pediatric studies altogether. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable delays in pediatric studies and provide the agency with critical enforcement tools to ensure required pediatric studies are completed. This legislation would also provide the FDA with the ability to better track the progress of studies and assist with any complications. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act also responds to the need for the development of pediatric medical devices in children, which can lag five to ten years behind those manufactured for adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has proven to be an effective incentive for the development of new medical devices that are designed specifically for the needs of children. Our bill would continue this important policy. It would also reauthorize the Pediatric Device Consortia, which in just two and a half years, has assisted in advancing the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical devices and helped get life-saving and life-improving pediatric devices to the patients that need them. This legislation is critical for children's health. It will help give parents peace of mind that when their doctor prescribes a medication or recommends a medical device for their kids, it is proven safe and effective for specific use in children. It is my understanding that Chairman Harkin will be including this legislation as part of a broader initiative that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will soon be considering focused on improving drugs and devices. I look forward to working with Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts, as well as the Chairman and others on moving this bill forward before the October deadline.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, BPDCA. This legislation will ensure that children are prioritized in the drug development process, as well as continue the increase in the number and quality of medical devices developed for use in children. I am particularly pleased that this bill has the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Indeed, drugs and devices work differently in children than in adults, and consequently, must be studied specifically for use in children. However, due to the fact that pediatric trials can be costly, take several years, and offer less of a return on investment, drug companies weren't initiating these trials. As a result, nearly 80 percent of drugs were used off-label in children. This alarming statistic garnered the attention of pediatricians, medical experts, families, and ultimately, Congress. In 1997, Congress provided pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to invest in pediatric research through the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA. In 2003, Congress passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act to begin requiring pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. Since the enactment of these laws, 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information and there has been a decline in the number of drugs used off-label in children from 80 to 50 percent. However, these laws will expire on October 1 unless Congress passes legislation to renew them. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act would ensure that these laws are never at risk of expiring again. Laws that examine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices in adults are permanent. Children should have the same assurances. By making these laws permanent, pharmaceutical companies will also gain the certainty they need to continue wisely investing in these studies. In making these laws permanent, we must not miss an opportunity to improve their benefits for children to ensure that more robust and timely information about the use of drugs and devices can guide clinical care. This legislation does just that. First, it would ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the drug development process. Currently, pediatric study plans can be submitted to the FDA when a company submits its new drug application. This can be a very stressful time for a company and, as such, pediatric study plans are often left to the last minute. This has traditionally resulted in insufficient and inappropriate study plans, as well as delays of important pediatric data. Our legislation would require companies to submit a more robust pediatric study plan at the end of phase two in the drug development process. By this time in the process, a company already has performed the requisite clinical trial or trials in adults and has a better understanding of a drug's safety and efficacy, as well as dosing requirements. Moreover, experts at the FDA initially tried to require companies to submit a pediatric study plan at this time in the drug development process in a regulation that was struck down by the courts. However, the rationale and justification behind the regulation helped inform the drafting of this legislation and led us to believe that companies should submit their initial pediatric study plan to the FDA at the end of phase two. The legislation would also ensure that pediatric studies are actually completed. An alarming 78 percent of pediatric studies that were scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are currently late or were submitted late. While it is appropriate for some studies to take longer than expected and we wouldn't want a pediatric study to hold up the approval of a drug for use in adults it is unacceptable for companies to fail to complete pediatric studies altogether. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable delays in pediatric studies and provide the agency with critical enforcement tools to ensure required pediatric studies are completed. This legislation would also provide the FDA with the ability to better track the progress of studies and assist with any complications. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act also responds to the need for the development of pediatric medical devices in children, which can lag five to ten years behind those manufactured for adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has proven to be an effective incentive for the development of new medical devices that are designed specifically for the needs of children. Our bill would continue this important policy. It would also reauthorize the Pediatric Device Consortia, which in just two and a half years, has assisted in advancing the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical devices and helped get life-saving and life-improving pediatric devices to the patients that need them. This legislation is critical for children's health. It will help give parents peace of mind that when their doctor prescribes a medication or recommends a medical device for their kids, it is proven safe and effective for specific use in children. It is my understanding that Chairman Harkin will be including this legislation as part of a broader initiative that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will soon be considering focused on improving drugs and devices. I look forward to working with Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts, as well as the Chairman and others on moving this bill forward before the October deadline.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow Senator from Rhode Island's effort to restore a basic level of fairness to our Tax Code. Senator Whitehouse has done an extraordinary job in fighting to return some sense of balance to a broken system. Most Americans agree Senator Whitehouse's legislation is fundamentally fair and they want to see it become law because as we all know, the Tax Code is riddled with loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans. It is past time we take this first step towards fixing a system that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Americans. This is a defining vote--it is about who you stand for and with, working men and women or multimillionaires and billionaires. This legislation signals to middle- class Americans that the government should be focused on helping them, by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share to support essential government programs that invest in education, infrastructure and our nation's future. The Tax Code stacks the deck for the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class. The middle-class has already been squeezed enough by stagnant wages and a complex tax system that does not work for them. The revenue raised through this measure is deficit reduction that is not taken out on the backs of seniors or working American families. This legislation will only impact 0.2 percent of Rhode Islanders that earn more than $1 million in income per year. Senator Whitehouse's Paying a Fair Share Act would prevent millionaires and billionaires from using tax loopholes that allow them to pay a lower effective tax rate than a school teacher in Rhode Island. Of millionaires in 2009, a full 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually paid less than a 15 percent income tax rate. Our Tax Code, riddled with loopholes and special giveaways, leads to lopsided and inequitable results. It is past time we correct these glaring loopholes and restore some fairness to our Tax Code. The 400 highest-income households in 2008, who made on average $271 million--paid just an 18.1 percent rate. This is nearly half the 29.9 percent rate those households paid on average in 1995 under President Clinton. According to the Center on Budget Policy Priorities analysis, the top 1 percent have seen their after tax income grow by 277% since 1979. The middle 60 percent of Americans have only seen a 38 percent increase and the bottom 20 percent have only seen an 18 percent increase. This is a result of a broken Tax Code that over the past several decades has been tilted to benefit the wealthiest Americans and not the middle-class. The tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans have contributed to staggering deficits. These deficits have increased pressure on our budget and motivated Republicans to slash services that benefit middle- class Americans in the name of deficit reduction. This is exactly why I opposed the reckless Bush tax cuts that skewed so heavily towards the wealthy, the segment of our society that needed the least help. In fact, it is estimated that the House Republican budget would give millionaires an additional $265,000 in tax cuts each year; unsurprisingly, Republicans want to double down on the misguided Bush tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. We need comprehensive tax reform, but not reform that skews the Tax Code even more towards the wealthy while asking for more sacrifice from the middle-class. The Paying a Fair Share Act is a first step in reversing this trend and reforming the Tax Code by restoring fairness. Making sure that millionaires and billionaires don't pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Americans will help make our Tax Code fairer while addressing our budget deficit. This is common sense and I hope Republicans will join us in taking the first step towards restoring fairness to our tax laws.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. According to the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island, 38,000 adults and 11,000 children in the state have a serious mental illness, and approximately 15 percent of Rhode Island adults report suffering from serious psychological distress every year. Unfortunately, mental illness is often linked to poor physical health--obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Community mental health centers help these individuals get the mental and behavioral health care that they need to lead healthier, more productive lives through no or low-cost treatments. This cost structure has been particularly critical throughout the recent recession and as our economy continues to recover. Individuals and families didn't have to forgo health care because they lost their job or health insurance. The proof is in the numbers. In just the last 6 months of 2010, Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island treated nearly 30,000 individuals. The demand for care will only grow as more Americans gain access to comprehensive, affordable health insurance in 2014. It is critical that Community Mental Health Centers have the infrastructure necessary to treat every individual who needs care. In Rhode Island, some of the community mental health centers are in older buildings that need updating. Others need more space to be able to meet current demand and prepare for the expected increase in patients in 2014. These needs are true of community mental health centers across the country. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would help ensure that Community Mental Health Centers have the resources to construct and modernize these mental and behavioral health facilities. I am pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader mental health care bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve our mental and behavioral health care delivery system, and urge my colleagues to support these important bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. According to the Mental Health Association of Rhode Island, 38,000 adults and 11,000 children in the state have a serious mental illness, and approximately 15 percent of Rhode Island adults report suffering from serious psychological distress every year. Unfortunately, mental illness is often linked to poor physical health--obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Community mental health centers help these individuals get the mental and behavioral health care that they need to lead healthier, more productive lives through no or low-cost treatments. This cost structure has been particularly critical throughout the recent recession and as our economy continues to recover. Individuals and families didn't have to forgo health care because they lost their job or health insurance. The proof is in the numbers. In just the last 6 months of 2010, Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island treated nearly 30,000 individuals. The demand for care will only grow as more Americans gain access to comprehensive, affordable health insurance in 2014. It is critical that Community Mental Health Centers have the infrastructure necessary to treat every individual who needs care. In Rhode Island, some of the community mental health centers are in older buildings that need updating. Others need more space to be able to meet current demand and prepare for the expected increase in patients in 2014. These needs are true of community mental health centers across the country. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would help ensure that Community Mental Health Centers have the resources to construct and modernize these mental and behavioral health facilities. I am pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader mental health care bill, the Excellence in Mental Health Act, that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve our mental and behavioral health care delivery system, and urge my colleagues to support these important bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.