Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the provisions of the Interior division of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012. The subcommittee's conference allocation totaled $29.175 billion. Although the Interior Subcommittee received a fair allocation, that number nevertheless represents a real cut of approximately 4 percent below the commensurate 2011 funding level. Despite the size of the cut, overall we were still able to fund critically needed infrastructure that will provide jobs for thousands of Americans in every State in our Nation. Let me start with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The conference report contains $8.5 billion in new budget authority. That is a reduction of approximately 3.5 percent below the equivalent 2011 level, but still a significant investment in our scientific research capabilities, our environmental programs, and critically needed water and sewer infrastructure. Included in the funding for EPA is $1.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $919 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Combined, this is nearly $800 million more than was initially provided by the House. The investments we are making in the clean water fund will lead to the start of approximately 473 new wastewater projects nationwide and will put more than 81,000 Americans to work when combined with State matching funds. In addition, the funding provided for the drinking water fund translates into 353 new drinking water projects nationwide and more than 50,000 jobs all across the country when combined with State matching funds. This is a tremendous economic boost for every State in the Nation and one that I am pleased that we could deliver. In addition to the funding, we have ensured that Davis-Bacon wage protections will be permanently applied to the use of these funds. No less important than the EPA are the land management agencies that account for the majority of the Interior bill. The conference report provides $5.9 billion for basic operational expenses for the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That amount is virtually identical to the 2011 enacted level and ensures that each of those agencies will be able to continue to operate and maintain their facilities as the American people expect. The conference agreement includes $197.5 million for the new Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Included in this amount is an additional $62 million for offshore oil and gas inspections that will be available from inspection fees assessed to the industry, which is appropriate given the tremendous profits generated by the industry. The conference report also provides $322 million for the protection of land and other environmentally sensitive areas through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This represents an increase of 7 percent over the current enacted level. For Native Americans, the bill provides $6.8 billion to help improve the quality and accessibility of education, health care, and law enforcement programs for some of this Nation's most vulnerable populations. Included in that amount is $3.8 billion for Indian health services, an increase of more than 5 percent over last year. These funds will allow those in Indian Country to receive the necessary care they deserve and will go a long way toward stemming the crisis in health care. The conference report provides more than $1.3 billion for our cultural and arts agencies, including $146 million for each of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities; $811 million for the Smithsonian Institution, including funding to begin construction of the African-American History and Culture Museum; and $36 million for the Kennedy Center. All in all, this bill represents sound investments in the scientific, natural, and cultural resources that come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Given resources at hand, not everyone will be satisfied, but I am confident that we have made wise funding decisions that will maximize our limited dollars. It is also important to note what is not included in the conference report. It is no secret that the Interior and Environment appropriations bill attracted more than its fair share of legislative riders that were designed to prohibit the EPA, and in some cases the Department of the Interior, from undertaking their responsibilities to protect public health and our natural resources. The bill that was considered by the House this summer was replete with riders that do not belong in an appropriations measure. This bill has eliminated or modified these legislative proposals so that agencies can continue to function effectively. Finally, I wish to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for all the assistance she provided throughout our conference negotiations with the House. She has provided invaluable assistance to me this year because of her unique insights into the issues that are central to this bill. I sincerely appreciate having had the benefit of her thoughts. I also want to commend and thank the staff of the Interior Subcommittee--Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, Rachael Taylor, and Ryan Hunt of the majority staff and Leif Fonnesbeck of the minority staff--for their work, service, and sacrifice. I also want to comment on a few items in the other divisions of this conference report. My colleagues who led the negotiations on these parts of the bill also faced enormous challenges in reaching agreement with the House, and I commend them for their efforts under difficult circumstances. With respect to Labor, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education, I am pleased that the conference report maintains the maximum Pell grant at $5,550 and continues funding the campus-based aid programs at last year's levels. Absent this Federal student aid, millions of Americans would not be able to afford college. Unfortunately, in order to maintain the maximum grant, tough sacrifices were made. The conference report rolls back provisions that I fought for to make the financial aid process easier and more substantial for families with modest incomes. Among other things, the conference report lowers the annual income threshold to automatically qualify for the maximum grant from $30,000 to $23,000. While I believe it is important to maintain support for the maximum Pell grant, I am troubled by the hurdles being erected to qualify for this assistance. I am pleased that the conference agreement includes $28.7 million for literacy and school library programs. I want to thank Chairman Harkin, Vice Chairman Cochran, as well as Senators Grassley, Stabenow, Wicker, and Snowe, who have worked with me to maintain Federal investments in these programs because they recognize that literacy remains at the core of academic achievement for all children and is a strong indicator for long-term success and opportunity. The conference report also provides $3.48 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. While that level is $900 million more than the President's request, it nonetheless represents a $1.2 billion or 25-percent cut for the main Federal program that assists low-income households with their energy bills. Given the high price of energy, dropping winter temperatures, and the tough economy, I hope that we can revisit this issue. To that end, I have been joined by Senators Snowe and Sanders and other colleagues in introducing the LIHEAP Protection Act, which would maintain level funding for the LIHEAP at last year's level of $4.7 billion. We are urging leadership to bring up this bill soon so Congress can take prompt action to fully restore this funding. Finally, the Labor, HHS, and Education division of the conference report includes nearly $560 million, a $34 million increase, for States to purchase immunizations for the uninsured and underinsured. I strongly support this wise investment since every dollar invested in the seven recommended pediatric vaccines saves $16.50 in direct and indirect health care costs. Under the Energy and Water division, I am pleased that the bill increases the funding for the Army Corp's Continuing Authorities Program from the levels provided by the Senate and the House. I want to thank and commend Chairman Feinstein for working to boost the Section 205 flood control program from $5 million to more than $18.7 million. As with LIHEAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, which helps low-income families improve the energy efficiency of their homes and saves each participant an estimated $437 annually in energy costs, experienced a significant reduction from the fiscal year 2011 level, dropping 61 percent from $174 million to $68 million. This is the lowest funding level since 1978, the year after the program's inception in 1977, and I hope that next year we can begin to restore this funding. The Financial Services and General Government division carries funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and other financial regulators. I know that Chairman Durbin shares my concern and frustration over the efforts of House Republicans to deprive these regulators of the authority and funding to oversee financial markets. Regrettably, the conference report cuts SEC funding by $86 million from the administration's request and the Senate-passed appropriations bill. In addition, the conference report rescinds $25 million from an SEC reserve fund that Senator Shelby and I created outside of the appropriations process in order to ensure that the SEC would always have access to the funds it needs for technology and long-term funding needs. These cuts were made despite the fact that the SEC's budget is completely paid for by fees it collects on the securities industry and is off-budget. In other words, decreasing the SEC's funding has no effect on our budget deficit; it only serves to hamstring the SEC and to slow implementation of the Wall Street Reform Act. I do want to acknowledge the fact that while the conference report does not add resources to what was provided under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, under the Agriculture Appropriations Act, it does grant CFTC limit transfer authority so that it will not have to lay off personnel. This is not enough to make the CFTC the cop on the beat we need it to be, but it is a critical change. As the months pass and the financial crisis of 2008 seems further away, we should not and cannot forget that the failure to effectively regulate the financial sector came at tremendous cost to the average American. We must remind ourselves of why we passed the Wall Street Reform Act, and why it needs to be robustly funded, so that we never have to endure such staggering costs again. In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference report we are voting on is far from perfect, but recognizing the limited resources available and the challenge of negotiating with the House, it is a reasonable agreement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I voted to prevent a tax increase on the middle class and to continue jobless benefits for millions of Americans and thousands of Rhode Islanders. Unfortunately, despite my and many of my colleagues' best efforts, this bill is deeply flawed. It doesn't provide needed certainty to Americans or to our economy because it does not provide a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits, nor does it include needed reforms, like work sharing, which will help prevent layoffs in our still fragile economy. By insisting that jobless benefits be paid for, we are undermining the countercyclical nature of the program and blunting its purpose to stabilize our economy. But worst of all, it fails to address a provision of the unemployment insurance law that is absolutely necessary given our current employment crisis. As a result, this bill effectively cuts 20 weeks of unemployment benefits. This means Rhode Islanders who have exhausted their normal UI benefits and extended--EUC08--benefits in February will not be eligible to receive the same help that was given to an unemployed person in the same situation back in the middle of 2011. There is no reason to cut back on jobless benefits now. Over 13 million Americans are out of work, and our Nation is still grappling with the worst case of chronic long-term unemployment since the Great Depression. Unemployment benefits are a lifeline to millions of families and are our most effective tool in battling economic decline. Without these benefits unemployed Americans who are looking for a job wouldn't be able to pay for absolute necessities--their rent, mortgage, groceries, or for transportation as they hit the streets looking for work. This reduction in coverage that my Republican colleagues have insisted upon is deeply damaging to American households and the broad economy. We should not be engaged in these short-term extensions of the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits--and then cut those jobless benefits as we go along. In addition to cutting jobless benefits that help a broad swath of Americans, Republicans refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to contribute to offsetting these policies. The payroll tax and jobless benefits could have been paid for by asking the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent to share in the sacrifice that middle-class America has made, but Republicans have voted time and again in favor of millionaire and billionaires and against tax cuts for the middle class. I will continue to fight for maintaining jobless benefits and extending the payroll tax cut through 2012. I will continue to oppose efforts that would cut benefits and that would pay for continuing benefits by hurting the middle class. As today's bill shows, though, my Republican colleagues are not interested in helping middle-class Americans and instead insist on tacking on controversial environmental riders and including offsets that hit the middle class. Indeed, this bill includes a provision that would require the President to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days. This timeframe would dramatically shorten the important environmental review of the project, which includes assessing its potential impacts on critical water resources in the Ogallala aquifer, as well as increased carbon pollution. I have been working to support and urge serious steps to reduce our dependence on oil, such as increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and developing advanced biofuels. Even if Canadian oil displaces the importation of oil from other countries, the price of oil is determined by the global market, and the best way to decrease our exposure to the rising price of oil is to decrease our demand. In addition, since America has recently become a net exporter of petroleum products, I am concerned that the proposed pipeline would merely allow big oil companies to import the oil from Canada, transport it by a pipeline--and with it, the risks of leaking into a critical aquifer--down to Texas refineries, where it would be refined into petroleum products that, in part, would be exported to foreign markets. It is for those reasons that I have opposed the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline and urge the President to reject it. As I have stated previously, I would have preferred to pay for this legislation by asking the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans to share in the sacrifices that all other Americans have made in working to right our economic ship. However, in the search for pay- fors, the House of Representatives added language that would increase the guarantee-fees--g-fees--the government-sponsored enterprises charge over the next 10 years, diverting funds away from shoring up the GSEs to fund a benefit that is unrelated to our housing markets. If there is any capacity to increase the g-fees, those resources should be directed to our housing markets, which still remain too fragile. I find it incredibly ironic that my Republican colleagues, many of whom say they believe the mortgage securitization market should be completely privatized, have suggested an offset that uses a 10-year revenue stream from the enterprises' business operations as a piggy bank for governmental purposes. This seems like inconsistent policy at best. This bill is deeply flawed, but I could not in good conscience vote against providing a tax cut to the middle class and providing desperately needed relief to nearly 10,000 Rhode Islanders who would have lost jobless benefits through the month of January. I will not stop fighting for the middle class, to continue jobless benefits and working to improve our economy and create jobs. I will work tirelessly to continue the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits through the rest of the year and to fix this egregious reduction in benefits.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Investor Risks in Capital Raising.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``The State of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Russia: U.S. Policy Options.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 14, 2011, at 9:45 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Alternative Energy Tax Incentives: The Effect of Short-Term Extensions on Alternative Technology Investment, Domestic Manufacturing, and Jobs.''

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to immediately extend the payroll tax cut and to fully continue jobless benefits for millions of Americans. In less than 3 weeks 160 million Americans face an automatic tax increase and millions of out-of-work Americans will begin to lose their jobless benefits. In order to keep our economy on track, we must continue the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. My State of Rhode Island, in particular, has felt the economic downturn acutely. With four unemployed job seekers for every one job and middle-class families struggling to get by--the possibility that Congress would let the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits expire is unthinkable. I have joined my colleagues on this side of the aisle and voted time and again to cut taxes for middle-class families, and each time our Republican colleagues have opposed the measure because they value tax breaks for the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners more than they do tax cuts for middle-class Americans. Republicans have even rejected our effort to provide tax cuts to businesses and provide them incentives to hire. So in response, Democrats narrowed the focus of the tax cuts to employees. But, Republicans again refused to provide a tax cut for the middle class because it was paid for by asking the top one- tenth of 1 percent of Americans to contribute. We have seen Republicans refuse to invest in our Nation's roads, bridges, schools, and in policies that will create jobs because Republicans cling to their belief that the wealthiest in our Nation should not have to share in the sacrifice every other American has made during these very difficult economic times. Republicans have voted in favor of millionaires and billionaires five times, costing middle-class Americans tax cuts and the continuation of jobless benefits and other policies that would help create and sustain jobs. Republicans are not putting forth serious proposals. The House Republican extenders plan that passed that body yesterday is the latest example of not only brinksmanship but their ideological rigidity. Instead of reaching a sensible compromise that works for all Americans, the House Republicans voted to slash the current unemployment insurance program nearly in half and eliminate targeted relief for the hardest hit States like Rhode Island even as our job market is still weak and 14 million Americans are out of work. Republicans are in effect refusing to pass critical legislation, particularly with respect to continuing unemployment insurance. And instead of continuing unemployment insurance they are working to put an end to it by implementing aggressive waivers leading to block granting and creating artificial barriers to benefits--all with the long-term goal of dismantling the system. The Republicans would blunt one of the most effective countercyclical tools we have and ultimately throw it away. At the core of the Republican Party's effort to reduce jobless benefits is the terribly misguided belief that Americans don't want to work. I say to my Republican colleagues--Americans do want to work. But we have to create jobs or incentivize the private sector to create jobs so they can work. Instead of compromising and focusing on economic policies that will help create jobs and help the middle class, House Republicans focus on dead-on-arrival special interest pet projects such as the Keystone pipeline and further efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act. The Republican plan ignores the reality and the challenges that face American families--to maintain their home, to maintain their job, to provide for the future of their families and their children and their retirement. For those who have lost their jobs in one of the worst economic downturns we have ever faced, unemployment insurance is a lifeline. It is also important for Main Street businesses that rely on these dollars. Grocery stores and drugstores--they all depend on people having some cash to come in and take care of the necessities of life. Without the extension of jobless benefits, consumers will pull back spending, hurt local businesses, and decelerate the progress our economy has made. We have had 21 months of private sector job growth. This is not sufficient to satisfy the needs across the country, but the growth stands in stark contrast to the absolute collapse of employment in the last months of the Bush administration. This job growth has not been an accident. It has been the result of decisions that the President and Congress made, which include the Recovery Act and other programs that keep the economy moving--not fast enough--but keep it moving forward. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that failing to extend UI benefits could result in a loss of $72 billion of economic activity in 2012--$72 billion of lost demand, which would slow down the economy and slow down job creation. These are challenging times for millions of Americans. We cannot afford to let Congress be sidetracked by marginal issues. The core issues are very clear: extend tax cuts for middle-class Americans, continue unemployment benefits to those desperately searching for work. We are facing a tough job market; we have to pass these measures. We have to pass a clean tax cut for millions of working middle class families, and we have to continue jobless benefits in order to help millions of out-of-work Americans looking for a job. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes at the conclusion of Senator Johnson's remarks.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue and so many others before the Banking Committee. Since September 2008, we have learned many hard lessons about the factors that contributed to the financial crisis. To address systemic risks and to fix the system, we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One of the most important reforms we made in that legislation was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the CFPB. The CFPB is charged with stopping abusive mortgage originators, stopping abusive credit card companies, and stopping abusive private student loan lenders. For years we have had organizations whose purpose was to protect the banking system and, indirectly, consumers. We need to provide a balance. Frankly, if we had this balance in place prior to 2008, we might have avoided some of the incredible costs we have seen not only to consumers but to the entire banking system as a result of predatory behavior by many different financial institutions. Unfortunately, many of my Republican colleagues are trying not to correct deficiencies in the Dodd-Frank act or improve it. They want to gut it. One of the things they want to take out is consumer protection, and they want to do that by denying a nominee to head up this important agency. It certainly is a prerogative of my colleagues to work on improving any piece of legislation, but effectively to say: We will not let legislation that has passed this body by 60 votes and that has ample precedent in the law to take effect because we won't put a person in charge is, I think, abusing the process. We have worked on this issue, and we know consumers need these types of protections. We know that daily there are scams targeting the elderly. There are unscrupulous mortgage lenders and abusive payday lenders. Most financial firms are not like this--in fact, these individuals probably represent a very small minority of the financial community, but they are abusive predators, particularly to the most vulnerable people in our society. There has been a lot of discussion about the 1 percent and the 99 percent. Well, guess what, the 99 percent are consumers, and the 1 percent are probably those people who are running some of these financial institutions, some of them fairly and scrupulously, but others who are not. We want to protect consumers in this country--all of us--certainly the 99 percent, but because of Republican opposition of this nominee, we are running into a real problem. If we do not have a head of this organization, then it cannot effectively implement regulations and effectively enforce the laws it has been given the task to oversee and implement. We have to have rules that apply across the country that get at the shadow banking system, that provide the kinds of protections consumers can rely on, and that, in fact, improve the operation of the marketplace. Again, I think some of the people who regret what happened the most in the 2007, 2008, 2009 time period are financial leaders looking around and saying: Why wasn't anyone checking the behavior of some of the financial companies out there that have ruined my marketplace and ruined my reputation? Well, we have to do that. The longer Richard Cordray is blocked, the longer such disreputable practices in the financial marketplace can continue. And Richard Cordray is entirely qualified: as former treasurer of the State of Ohio, he knows the financial business and worked closely with banks at the Treasury, as former attorney general of Ohio, he worked to protect consumers, and as an individual, he has the intellect and the character to do an outstanding job. We have to get him in place. Who suffers if we don't do this? Well, among those who are suffering are military personnel. I had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company in the 82nd Airborne Division in the 1970s. I was an executive officer, and I handled all the complaints, all the dunning, all the letters that were coming in from my soldiers. It has gotten worse. Holly Petraeus, who is the head of the Office of Servicemember Affairs at the CFPB, testified before the committee. She talked about Internet lenders who target military personnel--vulnerable soldiers and their families--who are about to deploy or who just came back from Afghanistan. They will give loans of up to 40 percent of a soldier's pay. Of course, the interest rate can be as high as 584 percent APR. We can't stop that until we get somebody such as Richard Cordray in charge of this organization. She also talked about the dunning calls, 20 times a day, threatening them: We will go to your commander. We will have you court-martialed. We will take away your security clearance. We will ruin your career. We have to stop that. This is about real people, real consumers. We have to confirm Richard Cordray. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan LIHEAP Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Sanders from Vermont, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased to see such broad support for funding for this critical program even in the midst of our budget challenges. Indeed, LIHEAP is a lifeline, providing vulnerable families with vital assistance when they need it most by helping low-income families and seniors on fixed-incomes with their energy bills. Last year, Congress provided $4.7 billion for LIHEAP. In an effort to control Federal spending, the Administration proposed an approximately 45 percent cut in LIHEAP funds from last year's level, down to about $2.57 billion in 2012. The Senate and House Appropriations bills only partially restored this drastic cut, to roughly $3.6 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively. These cutbacks could put our most vulnerable citizens at risk, especially as the number of households eligible for the program already exceeds those receiving assistance. Given the difficult economy and the projected rise in household energy expenditures, as much as 8 percent more than last year for those who heat their homes with heating oil according to the Energy Information Administration, it does not make sense to cut vital LIHEAP funding. We also need to act quickly. If funding is not finalized before winter, millions of low-income households run the risk of not receiving assistance during the coldest months when they need it most. Given the uncertainty in the full year appropriations for LIHEAP, which resulted in the release of only $1.7 billion in LIHEAP funding to States in October, some States have already begun lowering LIHEAP grant amounts. LIHEAP is a smart investment. For every dollar in benefits paid, $1.13 is generated in economic activity, according to economists Mark Zandi and Alan S. Blinder. I know we face a lot of difficult budget decisions around here, but I, along with so many of my colleagues, believe that LIHEAP should not be the place where we seek savings. I look forward to working to provide level funding for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2012. 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 am introducing the bipartisan LIHEAP Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Sanders from Vermont, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased to see such broad support for funding for this critical program even in the midst of our budget challenges. Indeed, LIHEAP is a lifeline, providing vulnerable families with vital assistance when they need it most by helping low-income families and seniors on fixed-incomes with their energy bills. Last year, Congress provided $4.7 billion for LIHEAP. In an effort to control Federal spending, the Administration proposed an approximately 45 percent cut in LIHEAP funds from last year's level, down to about $2.57 billion in 2012. The Senate and House Appropriations bills only partially restored this drastic cut, to roughly $3.6 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively. These cutbacks could put our most vulnerable citizens at risk, especially as the number of households eligible for the program already exceeds those receiving assistance. Given the difficult economy and the projected rise in household energy expenditures, as much as 8 percent more than last year for those who heat their homes with heating oil according to the Energy Information Administration, it does not make sense to cut vital LIHEAP funding. We also need to act quickly. If funding is not finalized before winter, millions of low-income households run the risk of not receiving assistance during the coldest months when they need it most. Given the uncertainty in the full year appropriations for LIHEAP, which resulted in the release of only $1.7 billion in LIHEAP funding to States in October, some States have already begun lowering LIHEAP grant amounts. LIHEAP is a smart investment. For every dollar in benefits paid, $1.13 is generated in economic activity, according to economists Mark Zandi and Alan S. Blinder. I know we face a lot of difficult budget decisions around here, but I, along with so many of my colleagues, believe that LIHEAP should not be the place where we seek savings. I look forward to working to provide level funding for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2012. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to extend and expand the payroll tax cut and to fully extend unemployment compensation insurance immediately. The payroll tax cut and full extension of unemployment insurance are two of our best tools for strengthening our economic recovery. We must work without let-up to pass this legislation before year's end. Democrats are doing everything we can to create jobs and solve our unemployment crisis. Millions of Americans are still out of work, however, and looking for a job in the toughest economy since the Great Depression. Jobless benefits, which have been essential to millions of Americans as they search for a job, are set to expire at the end of this year. Congress has never failed to extend benefits when unemployment is this high. Unfortunately, right now, Republicans are refusing to fully extend unemployment insurance, despite our Nation's 9 percent unemployment rate. In extending benefits, we should not do any less for the recently unemployed than we did for those who were unemployed in the last year or two. That is why I introduced the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011, which fully extends Federal support for unemployment insurance through 2012. Extending benefits doesn't just make sense for a person who has been laid off, it makes sense for the economy as a whole. In fact, during today's hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, a business operator recognized that failing to extend unemployment insurance would have a negative impact on their business. Its was hard for him to quantify, but the sense he has, from operating a very dispersed convenience store operation throughout this country, is there would likely be a negative impact. Those impacts will be magnified and multiplied throughout our economy. It will, ironically, cause not just those without jobs to lose benefits, it will also probably lead to further reductions in jobs as demand falls off and the need for employees, particularly in retail establishments, might lessen. That is why, if Congress truly wishes to help strengthen our economy, we need to extend unemployment insurance now. The reason we must fully extend unemployment insurance is simple: If people don't have jobs, they can't spend money. If people can't spend money, businesses go under. If businesses fail, more people lose their jobs, and the downward spiral continues. Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do, it is a wise investment with a strong rate of return that will provide a much needed economic boost to every State across the country. Unemployment is, regrettably, a national crisis. This program will address a nationwide problem, and it will do it in an extraordinarily cost-effective way. The CBO has calculated that this has one of best returns on the dollar. The reason we must fully extend unemployment insurance is quite simple. People who are receiving unemployment benefits need that money to pay for groceries, to put some gas in the car, to take care of those immediate expenses. So, as the economists would say, their marginal propensity to consume--i.e., their willingness to take the dollar in and spend it out--is very high. As a result, this program not only helps families who are struggling, it also immediately injects dollars and demand into the economy. These programs have a real benefit. We understand what we have to do to address our unemployment crisis and that is to grow the economy, and that means we must create jobs. Again, this program will help stimulate demand, will help keep people at work and perhaps even--we hope--put more people to work. When it comes to the efficacy of this program, the bang for the buck, it is among the most effective. I referred earlier to some economists-- in specific terms--Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi have estimated that for every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits, the economy grows by $1.61. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that failing to extend UI benefits for a year could result in the loss of $72 billion in economic activity for 2012, which impacts 560,000 jobs across the country. The country cannot afford this hit. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity to maintain or create over 500,000 jobs. We cannot ignore the fact that, in this very critical budget situation, this is one of the most cost-effective ways to continue to stimulate demand and grow jobs in our country. We also have to understand that we are dealing with a situation that is getting to be critical because we are running out of time. These benefits will expire at the end of the year, and we must move forward. I think we can also do something else, and that is to improve this program. One way to improve it is to adopt a program that is very effective in my State of Rhode Island and several other States across the country, and that is work sharing. Work sharing is a voluntary program that prevents layoffs, it keeps people on the job, it helps employers retain skilled workers, and it strengthens the unemployment insurance system. Over 20 States are utilizing this program. They estimate they saved 100,000 jobs in 2010 alone. Essentially what it does is it allows an employer--for example--to keep people on the job for 3 out of 5 days of the week, and the other 2 days are compensated for by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The fund saves money, and the employer keeps these people in the workplace with all their skills and all their contributions to the firm. It is a win-win, and it is something over 20 States across this country have embraced. I think it should be national, and we have provisions in legislation I've introduced that would help extend it nationally. Again, we cannot delay. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in taking the needed steps to help our economic recovery and extend our unemployment compensation insurance program before the end of this year. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the Senator from Delaware. As I have indicated, I would like to make some comments about how I think we can improve and clarify the legislation that was adopted last evening by unanimous consent. But, first, let me begin by recognizing, obviously, the extraordinary contributions of the men and women of our National Guard. I speak from the experience of just a few weeks ago having visited members of the 43rd Military Police Brigade of the Rhode Island National Guard who have the responsibility for the detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. Under the able leadership of BG Charles Petrarca, they are doing an extraordinary job. I also was able to talk with some of the members of our Air National Guard, the 143rd Airlift Wing. This is the finest C-130-J wing in the entire U.S. Air Force--National Guard or Active or Reserve, in my estimate. They are doing remarkable work. They are doing remarkable work. In fact, we could not continue the operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or our homeland security obligations, without the men and women of the National Guard. I wish to also just say coincidentally that I had the great opportunity to sit down with my Adjutant General Kevin McBride. General McBride and his staff are extraordinarily effective professionals. I first got the chance to see him literally in action when he commanded the 43rd Military Police Brigade in Iraq, where they also had detention responsibilities. So we are talking about now a component of our military forces that are professionals, superbly qualified, complete patriots, and dedicated to the success of the mission and the success of this Nation. There is the saying ``One Army'', as there is ``One Air Force,'' and it truly is. I can recall serving on Active Duty when there was at least a perception of disparity between Reserve, National Guard, and Active- Duty forces. That perception no longer exists. The reality is that these are superb professionals doing their job. So I think that is the starting point to consider this legislation. What I would like to suggest in terms of an improvement to the legislation is clarifying the role and responsibility of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If he has statutory responsibilities, those responsibilities should be specified. As General McKinley, who is the current Chief of the National Guard Bureau and a superb professional, pointed out at the committee hearing: The Chief of the National Guard Bureau still does not have an institutional position from which [he] can advise the President, the NSC, the Homeland Security Council, and Congress on non-federalized National Guard forces that are critical to homeland defense and civil support missions. If this is the purpose of appointing and confirming the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that purpose should be laid out. If that is the role he or she is expected to play--to provide advice to the Chairman and advice to the President on the non-federalized National Guard forces critical to homeland defense and civil support missions--it should be spelled out. I hope it is spelled out as we go forward with the process of conferencing this legislation. He went on to say: Adding the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the JCS, in my opinion, would ensure that in the post-9/11 security environment the National Guard's non-federalized role in homeland defense and civil support missions will be fully represented in all JCS deliberations. I think this is very important. Let me suggest why--because one of the essentials of any military organization is unity of command. The National Guard Bureau has two separate services which it represents: the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. We do not want, particularly at the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to confuse who speaks for the services--who speaks for the Army, who speaks for the Air Force. I think in order to do this--to preserve the unity of command, to make it very clear that at the deliberations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force speaks for the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army speaks for the Army--we have to make it clear what the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is speaking to. I hope as we go forward we can make it very clear as General McKinley made it very clear in his testimony that his perspective, his point of view, his position on the Joint Chiefs is related, as he said repeatedly, to those non-federalized functions of the National Guard, particularly with respect to homeland security and civil support missions. I think this would enhance and clarify the role of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and I also think it would avoid even the appearance of a lack of unity of command within the services. I think these are important points. These points can be and should be approached in the conference. I hope that at the end of the day, when the President is prepared to sign this bill--and there may be other improvements to this legislation--that this particular aspect of the legislation is incorporated. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if it is in order, I would like to speak on the bill. Last evening we passed the Leahy-Graham amendment, which would, by law, make the head of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As we go forward in our deliberations with respect to this bill, particularly the conference committee----

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act of 2011 along with Senator Grassley. One of the largest securities frauds in history began unraveling in August 2001 when an Enron vice president expressed her concern that the company might ``implode under a series of accounting scandals.'' Enron disclosed a few months later that its historical financial statements were not accurate. A subsequent restatement revealed over that $500 million in losses had gone unreported. Several other large corporate frauds followed shortly thereafter. For instance, in June 2002, WorldCom admitted that it had misrepresented its profitability to investors. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings on the issues that were raised by the revelations of Enron and other public companies. The hearings produced a remarkable consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing a public company's financial statements. In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Senate passed this legislation on a 99 to 0 vote. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. The new law also created a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB or Board. The board is responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors and further the preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. The board operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. The PCAOB is responsible for setting auditing standards for auditors of public companies, for examining the quality of audits performed by public company auditors, and where necessary, for imposing disciplinary sanctions on registered auditors and auditing firms. The PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to commence proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. In order to determine whether to institute a proceeding, the board's enforcement staff conducts a nonpublic investigation and makes a recommendation to the five-member board. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public. Unfortunately, over the last several years, bad actors have been taking advantage of this lack of transparency. In April 2011, the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, which I chair, considered the issue of enhancing the PCAOB's effectiveness by permitting the Board to disclose information about its enforcement proceedings. PCAOB Chairman James Doty noted that the ``secrecy has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and this ``state of affairs is not good for investors, for the auditing profession, or for the public at large.'' In one example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about the PCAOB proceedings. Those public companies and their investors were completely in the dark about the board's decision to both institute disciplinary proceedings and about the progress of those proceedings. The auditor knew about the proceedings, but the investors and public companies were denied information that was arguably very relevant to the audit relationship. There are additional reasons that the proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other oversight bodies, as I have already noted. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but from Congress as well. The public and Congress have a role in ensuring that not just auditors are held to account, but also that the PCAOB is held to account as well for its oversight of the auditors and audit firms. Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from the public as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. In April, Chairman Doty, who testified before the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, noted that ``the fact that PCAOB disciplinary proceedings are required to be secret creates a considerable incentive to litigate.'' Third, a recent academic study noted that the public nature of SEC's proceedings against companies result in good results. ``Observing a public SEC enforcement action in its industry against a target firm is likely to increase a peer firm's knowledge about SEC activity and cause it to revise upward its subjective probability of attracting such an action against itself.'' In effect, the study noted that this may serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, open and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the board. The board procedure would then be similar to the SEC's Rules of Practice for similar matters, where hearings and related notices, orders, and motions are open and available to the public. We need to ensure public proceedings to better protect and serve companies and investors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in taking the legislative steps necessary to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I wish to commend Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their leadership in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. All my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee have done a remarkable job and have done it with great discipline and dedication and concern for the men and women of our Armed Forces and the defense of the Nation. This is the 50th consecutive Defense authorization bill that the Senate has considered, and I hope we will soon be able to send it to the President for his signature. We owe this to our service men and women who are devoting themselves, and indeed their families also, to the protection of the United States. We made difficult decisions in putting together this bill, especially in these challenging economic times. We were able to find $26 billion in savings from the original budget request the President submitted earlier this year. But I am confident this bill provides a budget that allows the Department of Defense to combat current threats, plan for future threats and provide for the welfare and protection of those men and women and their families who serve this Nation. I am pleased that at the start of the debate on this important measure, that we were able to take up and pass Senator Ayotte's amendment on strategic airlift, which I was pleased to cosponsor. I was, indeed, very impressed with Senator Ayotte's thorough understanding of this issue, her ability to seize on a point and make sure it is fully understood. We were able to also bring together leaders of our services, the Department of Defense, TRANSCOM, and the Air Force, so that this decision was based on a very thorough analysis. We owe a great deal of thanks to Senator Ayotte for her extraordinary performance in this regard. I am also working on several other amendments that would provide additional assistance, not just to the overall structure of the Defense Department but also to our military personnel. These deal with protecting the individual service men and women from exploitation by businesses and by other financial entities. We have taken some steps going forward with the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Office of Service Members Affairs, headed by Holly Petraeus, but we have to do more. I hope we can in this bill. I am also proposing amendments that would address some of the inconsistencies in the policies of National Guard dual-status technicians. A further area of concern is better coordination between the mental health care provided by the Department of Defense and the community providers, particularly for members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. They often don't have the opportunity to be close to a major military installation and so coordination with local community providers is so critical to helping these members and their families. I hope, again, we can work together to get these provisions included in the legislation. Let me highlight a few of the measures in the overall legislation that are very important. It authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for our men and women in uniform. This is critical in meeting the needs of our military personnel. The legislation also authorizes the full funding of the DOD's Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, the MRAP program, which provides for the sustainment of MRAPs and M-ATVs to protect our troops on the ground. Again, having recently returned about 3 weeks ago from Afghanistan, these are critical weapon systems. My colleagues on the committee who also frequently travel into these war zones will attest to that fact. I am pleased we included this provision in the legislation. The proposed legislation also authorizes $11.2 billion for the Afghan Security Forces Fund to train and equip the Afghan Army and police. This is a $1.6 billion reduction from the President's request. The CENTCOM commander, General Mattis, and Lieutenant General Caldwell, who was the commander on the ground, determined that this reduction could be made because of the efficiencies being achieved by the NATO training mission in Afghanistan. We have to be much more efficient going forward in terms of resources, and we also have to prepare for the long term support, not alone but with our international partners, of the creation and sustainment of the Afghan National Security Forces. It represents probably the most significant component, long term, of stabilizing Afghanistan. We cannot do it alone. There has to be political will and capacity. As we develop this military force, we also have to think ahead about how we are, not alone but together with our allies, going to ensure it is properly resourced in order to be a contributing factor in the stability of Afghanistan. This year, once again, I also had the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee alongside Senator Wicker, whom I wish to thank for his thoughtful and significant contribution to the legislation. The Seapower Subcommittee is focused on the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the strategic mobility forces. The subcommittee put particular emphasis on supporting Marine and naval forces engaged in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher priority programs. The subcommittee specifically included requested funding for two Virginia-class submarines, the DDG-1000 Program, the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program, the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer Program, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program, the LHA Amphibious Assault Ship, the Joint High Speed Vessel, the Mobile Landing Platform, and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft. All these weapons systems are important aspects of Navy and Marine projection power throughout the world. I am particularly pleased, obviously, about the continued support for the Virginia-class submarine program and the DDG-1000, which are integral parts not only of our national security but of the economy of New England. The subcommittee also included language that would require the Department of Navy to restructure plans to replace the canceled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle system for the Marine Corps and to complete an analysis of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle alternatives before launching into a Marine Personnel Carrier acquisition program. Essentially, the Marine Corps is restudying their ability to move marines from ship to shore and then from shore inland to exploit the beachhead, and that careful study is necessary before they make a commitment for future programs for equipment. We also included language that would permit the Navy to use multiyear procurement authority to buy common cockpits and avionic systems for the Navy's H-60 helicopters in the most efficient manner. Let me conclude by once again thanking Senator Wicker, particularly for his help with respect to the Seapower Subcommittee, and thanking all my colleagues. I think we have a good piece of legislation before us. I hope in the process of amending it, we can improve the bill, and I look forward to sending such a bill to the President for his signature. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act of 2011 along with Senator Grassley. One of the largest securities frauds in history began unraveling in August 2001 when an Enron vice president expressed her concern that the company might ``implode under a series of accounting scandals.'' Enron disclosed a few months later that its historical financial statements were not accurate. A subsequent restatement revealed over that $500 million in losses had gone unreported. Several other large corporate frauds followed shortly thereafter. For instance, in June 2002, WorldCom admitted that it had misrepresented its profitability to investors. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings on the issues that were raised by the revelations of Enron and other public companies. The hearings produced a remarkable consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing a public company's financial statements. In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Senate passed this legislation on a 99 to 0 vote. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. The new law also created a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB or Board. The board is responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors and further the preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. The board operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. The PCAOB is responsible for setting auditing standards for auditors of public companies, for examining the quality of audits performed by public company auditors, and where necessary, for imposing disciplinary sanctions on registered auditors and auditing firms. The PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to commence proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. In order to determine whether to institute a proceeding, the board's enforcement staff conducts a nonpublic investigation and makes a recommendation to the five-member board. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public. Unfortunately, over the last several years, bad actors have been taking advantage of this lack of transparency. In April 2011, the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, which I chair, considered the issue of enhancing the PCAOB's effectiveness by permitting the Board to disclose information about its enforcement proceedings. PCAOB Chairman James Doty noted that the ``secrecy has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and this ``state of affairs is not good for investors, for the auditing profession, or for the public at large.'' In one example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about the PCAOB proceedings. Those public companies and their investors were completely in the dark about the board's decision to both institute disciplinary proceedings and about the progress of those proceedings. The auditor knew about the proceedings, but the investors and public companies were denied information that was arguably very relevant to the audit relationship. There are additional reasons that the proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other oversight bodies, as I have already noted. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but from Congress as well. The public and Congress have a role in ensuring that not just auditors are held to account, but also that the PCAOB is held to account as well for its oversight of the auditors and audit firms. Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from the public as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. In April, Chairman Doty, who testified before the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, noted that ``the fact that PCAOB disciplinary proceedings are required to be secret creates a considerable incentive to litigate.'' Third, a recent academic study noted that the public nature of SEC's proceedings against companies result in good results. ``Observing a public SEC enforcement action in its industry against a target firm is likely to increase a peer firm's knowledge about SEC activity and cause it to revise upward its subjective probability of attracting such an action against itself.'' In effect, the study noted that this may serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, open and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the board. The board procedure would then be similar to the SEC's Rules of Practice for similar matters, where hearings and related notices, orders, and motions are open and available to the public. We need to ensure public proceedings to better protect and serve companies and investors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in taking the legislative steps necessary to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I rise to underscore a crucial challenge facing our Nation. There are 14 million Americans who are looking for work. Six million have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and the average length of unemployment is 40 weeks, the longest average in more than 60 years. These are dire circumstances. They must be changed, and we know how to do it. We know how to address our immediate unemployment crisis. We must enact policies that will put Americans back to work and strengthen our economy. Congress can start by passing the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act is a blueprint for boosting our economy. It contains policies that most Americans, and virtually all economists, agree government should do in order to help our economy grow. It would provide relief to the middle class. It would help small businesses grow and hire. It would invest in our Nation's bridges and roads and schools, help stabilize our housing market and provide aid to States so teachers and first responders can stay on the job. Congress must also renew basic policies such as Federal unemployment compensation programs that have been a lifeline to the unemployed, their families, businesses and to States and economies throughout this Nation. If we do not extend unemployment benefits by the end of the year, 2 million Americans will lose their benefits by February 2012. This would be disastrous for them and for the local businesses that depend upon these people being able to still go out and get a cup of coffee or go out and buy the essentials of life. It would be disastrous for States that, again, depend on that type of economic activity in our national economy. This is why I joined several of my colleagues to introduce the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011. If Federal support for unemployment benefits is not extended, the economy could lose $72 billion in economic activity, endangering up to 560,000 jobs nationwide--in my State the estimate is 2,300 jobs would be lost-- simply because we will again shrink demand as people who are relying on just getting by with an unemployment check no longer even have that-- those few dollars--to get by. These proposals should be nonpartisan and in the past they have indeed garnered both Democratic and Republican support. Unfortunately, in the midst of the deepest and longest unemployment crisis our Nation has faced since the Great Depression, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen simply to delay and to deny the reality of millions of Americans who are looking for work, underemployed, struggling to get by day to day. In January 2008, before the economic crisis took hold, the unemployment rate was 5 percent. It ultimately peaked at 10.1 percent nationally in October of 2009. This massive, sudden drop in employment was precipitated by one of the worst financial crises we have ever seen in the history of the country. This crisis was caused by excessive risk taking by financial institutions, lax regulations and, in the minds of so many Americans, out and out greed. Since that 10.1-percent high of unemployment in October of 2009, the unemployment rate has trended downward, but not fast enough. The national unemployment rate has hovered around 9 percent since January of this year. The fact remains that the economy is generating more jobs than it was under the policies of President Bush, particularly in the last year of his administration, but it is still not generating enough jobs. As we saw with the most recent unemployment report, businesses are hiring despite some strong headwinds, particularly the economic dangers from Europe. In October, the economy added 80,000 jobs and the unemployment rate came down from 9.1 percent to 9 percent. That is the right direction, but not the right speed, not the right momentum, not the right response to this crisis. The economy still has 6.6 million fewer jobs than at the beginning of the 2007 recession, and the rate of job growth is, as I said, simply too slow. Adding 80,000 jobs keeps us a bit afloat, but it doesn't allow us to have the momentum to move the economy forward, which we need. If we continue to see sluggish job growth with an average 125,000 payroll jobs added per month--and that is the pace this year--it will take us an additional 52 months--not weeks--52 months to get back to the prerecession levels of payroll employment. If we pick up job growth--say to 200,000 jobs per month, which is, again, exceeding the current pace, but not the kind of spectacular pace we need--it still will take an additional 33 months to get back to pre-Bush recession levels in employment. This persistently high unemployment rate and anemic growth have correctly been described as a national crisis. But more important than the findings of economists and those who are studying the policy effects of this is the damage that this crisis is inflicting upon the families and communities of America. Combined with the fact that middle-class families have not seen a real increase in their family income in 10 years, and now they have seen this high unemployment, this is a double whammy. At the same time, some essentials such as food and fuel have become more expensive. We cannot overstate the difficulty that so many families are seeing: 10 years, effectively, without any real growth in their income, increased prices in essentials, and a job market that is weak, at best, although slightly improved. That is why what we have to do here is literally get Americans back to work, to give them not only the resources but the confidence that the days ahead will be much better. This crisis requires the full attention of Congress, as well as action, not just discussion. We cannot afford further inaction. We cannot again indulge in a period of time where we were borrowing to pay for two major conflicts. I note my predecessor from Alabama talking about the military budget. Since 2001, we have fought two major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have not raised the revenue to support those efforts. We have put them on the backs of future generations of Americans and on the backs of Americans today who are facing this job crisis. We have to work, to put people to work, to end this problem. Unfortunately, I fear that, as I have said before, many of my Republican colleagues are simply engaged in delay, which might be politically expedient, but it is not helping the families of America. Economists who are studying this economy, both national and international, have been emphatic that we have to put policies in place to get people back to work. Many of these policies are encapsulated in the American Jobs Act, which has been repeatedly rejected by my colleagues on the other side. They voted down two parts of the bill we pulled out, one being the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act that would have created or protected 400,000 education jobs, kept thousands of police and firefighters on the job, and helped local communities as they are struggling to keep afloat. They also rejected the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would have made an immediate investment of $50 billion in our highways, transit systems, railways, and aviation infrastructure. Frankly, I don't know any American in any part of this country who does not get the idea that we have to begin and continue to reinvest in our infrastructure. Every American can point to a bridge that is failing. They can point to congestion on the highways. They can point to projects that are so necessary not only for the long-term activity of the country but for the immediate employment of our citizens. The rejection of these efforts is based on one simple fact: that we are asking the wealthiest Americans to pay for these initiatives. No longer are we going to put it on the back of future generations as we have with a decade of foreign conflicts and other programs such as the Medicare Part D expansion. We are trying to be fiscally responsible not only to propose ways to put people to work but also to pay for those measures now. That is what my colleagues object to. They seem to be more concerned about that 1 percent that is talked about than the rest of Americans who need work--not just directly, but their communities need the work so they can prosper along with the Nation. All of this delay has been accompanied by their proposals, but their proposals always seem to rely upon austerity: We will have to cut more and more and more. But I don't think this single-minded focus on austerity is going to lead to the kind of growth we need. In fact, there are many analysts and economists who argue that the austerity measures being suggested are counterproductive to growing the economy; that, in fact, they lead to higher unemployment and lower wages. For example, a recent IMF study talking about the consequences of pursuing an agenda focused on austerity found that an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real income by about .6 percent and raises unemployment by .5 percent. So the notion that we can simply cut our way to employment growth is not substantiated by fair-minded analysis. For example, again, Gus Faucher of Moody Analytics examined the most recent proposal offered by my colleagues Senators McCain and Paul and said that the Republican proposal wouldn't address the causes of the current weakness in the short term and in fact it would be harmful. The Congressional Budget Office looked at a broad range of policies from both parties and concluded that reducing taxes on business income and repatriation of foreign income are the most ineffective and inefficient tools for growing jobs. These two measures seem to lead the list of the proposals on the other side of the aisle. Also, the idea of providing more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy to create jobs is not supported by the record. Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest resulted in mediocre growth for our economy and declining wages for the middle class over the period of 2001 to 2008, 2009. Instead of bringing forth or supporting issues that will actually put Americans to work, my colleagues on the other side want to reframe the issue. They want to talk about burdensome regulations, and this argument doesn't stand up, either. Mr. President, let me conclude by making a point which I think is very important, because this notion of simply striking away all the regulations and we will have this miraculous growth in employment is not substantiated by careful analysis. Since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has tracked reasons behind mass layoffs. Among the reasons an employer can cite for layoffs is ``government regulation.'' The data shows that government regulation accounted for a minuscule .2 percent of layoffs. These are the managers and leaders of these companies checking the box as to what is causing them to lay off people. Instead, employers cite a lack of demand as a reason for 39 percent of the layoffs in 2008 to 2010. Indeed, if regulations are driving unemployment, one would expect to see job losses and high unemployment rates in sectors of the economy where regulation has increased, such as the financial services sector. However, in the financial services sector, the unemployment rate is much lower than the national average. In fact, it is at 5.8 percent. Meanwhile, domestic financial firms have posted extraordinary record profits in the first two quarters of 2011. So this notion that eliminating regulations is going to miraculously solve our problems is not substantiated by the evidence we are collecting. What we need to do is put people back to work. The programs in the American Jobs Act will do that. I hope that will be recognized and accepted so we can move quickly to pass it. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to correct inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program. Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our Nation. They are a distinct group of workers, as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status, attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies, thereby creating their ``dual-status.'' Because of their unique position, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as a dual-status technician. This way we will retain the experience and skills of these dedicated employees. Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, a neutral Federal agency. Dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service. Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select. The National Guard Technician Equity Act also corrects other inconsistencies by providing greater civilian and military retirement parity, providing eligibility to retain certain military bonuses and benefits, and increasing leave time for required military training. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act. I will also be working to include provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has begun to consider, and I hope my colleagues can work together on this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.