Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Joining Forces for Military Mental Health Act with my colleagues Senators Ayotte, Kerry, Shaheen, Scott Brown, Whitehouse, Leahy, and Blumenthal. This legislation seeks to improve the coordination of research, treatment, education and outreach of mental health, substance use disorders, and traumatic brain injury, TBI, among members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. These service members often return from a tour of duty and transition into civilian life far from military bases and without easy access to the care they might need, which can make transitioning back into family life and careers more difficult. Those who do seek care in their community may not always receive the most appropriate and effective treatment. The Joining Forces for Military Mental Health Act would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide grants to community partners that engage in research, treatment, education, and outreach. This will help ensure that every member of the military receives innovative and effective treatments and the most updated information about mental illness, substance abuse, and TBI connected with military service. This type of coordination of research, treatment, education, and outreach, and collaboration with community partners could improve the health outcomes of members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. This bipartisan legislation has been endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Red Sox Foundation and others have already shown this type of coordination to be effective in providing quality care. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this legislation and join me in supporting this effort to improve the mental health care that members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families receive in the community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe libraries are critical institutions to our Nation and our democracy. Today, I recognize one library in particular, Brown University Library, for its 150th anniversary as Rhode Island's oldest Federal Depository Library. The Federal Depository Library Program was established by Congress to ensure that the American public could access government records and information locally. The 10 depository libraries in Rhode Island are part of a network of more than 1,200 libraries nationwide that provide free access to Federal Government materials, both in print and online. In 1861, under a newly enacted law granting each Senator the authority to assign one depository in their State, Senator James F. Simmons designated the Brown University Library as an official depository to receive U.S. Government publications. While Brown University had been receiving government documents through various channels since revolutionary times, this designation established Brown as the first depository library in Rhode Island and one of the earliest so designated libraries in the Nation. For the past 150 years, the Brown University Library has helped students, faculty, and residents throughout Rhode Island find and use government information. The collection at Brown contains a wide variety of government documents that reflect the rich history of Rhode Island and the Nation as a whole, including historical debates surrounding the adoption of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery and legislation authored by my predecessor Senator Claiborne Pell establishing the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It is also home to a wealth of information useful to Rhode Islanders, such as demographic data on the changing and diverse nature of the State's population; a vast array of health and wellness materials; and business and economic news and reports. Since 1994, Brown and other Federal depository libraries have worked in partnership with the U.S. Government Printing Office to make government information in a digital format directly accessible to the public via the Internet. First, through the GPO Access online system, and now through GPO's Federal Digital System, the American public has free access to authenticated information from all three branches of the Federal Government. Across the country, Federal depository libraries enable the public to stay informed on the workings of our government and provide free access to all types of essential information. Additionally, they play a vital role in preserving the historical record of our democracy. I congratulate Brown University Library for its 150 years of serving as a resource for the people of Rhode Island and am proud to celebrate an institution that is dedicated to informing Rhode Islanders and advancing the values of our democracy.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Whitehouse and I have come to the floor today to pay tribute to Governor Bruce Sundlun. He passed away last Thursday. He was an extraordinary gentleman. I think it is particularly appropriate that my colleague is here along with me because he was the director of policy for Governor Sundlun, and many of the achievements in the Sundlun administration were directly attributed to Senator Whitehouse's extraordinary efforts. Today, I am here, first, as a Rhode Islander to say on behalf of the people of my State how much we appreciate the leadership, vision, and determination of Governor Bruce Sundlun. He was elected in the middle of the worst financial crisis in the history of our State since the Great Depression--a collapse of the private credit union system. He got through that crisis as only he could. Then he went on to reconstruct our airport, to reform our workers' compensation system, and to make lasting contributions to the people of Rhode Island. So I come to salute an extraordinary Governor. I also come as a colleague in government. When Governor Sundlun was elected to the statehouse in 1990, I was elected to my first term in the Congress. I was there to observe his extraordinary intellect, determination, skill, and his relentless commitment to doing his best to help the people of Rhode Island. I saw it firsthand. Truly, without Bruce's leadership, we would not have weathered the financial crisis of 1991 in Rhode Island. His extraordinary grasp of the financial details, his unwavering determination to do the right thing, not the popular thing, and his ability to withstand withering criticism from all quarters resulted not only in the restitution of the savings of thousands of Rhode Islanders, but essentially the repayment of the moneys that had to be borrowed to take care of the crisis. It was extraordinary work. Frankly, I think everybody in Rhode Island rapidly conceded that only Bruce Sundlun could have done it. I also come here, like Bruce, as a veteran of our Armed Forces, but unlike Bruce, who was a combat veteran. Bruce joined the U.S. Army and qualified as a pilot in the Air Corps in World War II. He was brave. He was tough. He led his crew with great distinction on numerous bombing raids over occupied Europe. In one of those raids, he was shot down. Of course, he had the presence of mind to keep the aircraft as steady as he could to let crewmen escape. Finally, at the last moment, he himself parachuted to Earth. He was behind enemy lines without any weapons except his determination, his courage, and his determination, again, not only to survive but to return to the fight. Through an amazing series of breathtaking episodes that read like a novel, Bruce would go from village to village and seek out the priests in the French village, or Belgian village. He would say in fluent French that he was an American flier and needed their help. He always received their help. He would be given assistance and would be hid for a while. He told me with his great sardonic smile-- that he would find unusual ways to get around. He would go into the village at market time when the ladies of the village parked their bicycles, and he would take one of them and pedal as fast as he could to the next village where he could find another bike. So he covered the route through occupied Europe, finally making his way into Switzerland. That was a remarkable bit of courage. After the war Bruce continued to distinguish himself in business, and in so many ways. But one thing is that he left a legacy not just to the people of Rhode Island, not just a public record, but he was part of the ``greatest generation'' that left an indelible image on the soldiers, sailors, aviators, and marines who serve today, a fidelity to duty, of courage, and of determination to serve and sacrifice on behalf of your comrades and your country. That image continues to sustain our forces in the field and this great Nation. To Governor Sundlun, to his family, as a Rhode Islander, I thank you. As a colleague in government, I thank you. As someone who was inspired by your service to this country, I thank you. May you rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an exceptional U.S. Sailor, HM2 Jacob Emmott, known as ``Doc Emmott'' to the marines with whom he serves. ``Doc'' was awarded the Silver Star medal on July 14, 2011, for his extraordinary bravery and service. Petty Officer Emmott, a resident of Wakefield, RI, served as a platoon corpsman with Company C, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. On April 20, 2010, Petty Officer Emmott was on patrol with his fellow marines when they began receiving heavy fire from multiple enemy positions. One of the marines sustained multiple gunshot wounds and, with complete disregard for his own personal safety, Petty Officer Emmott rushed through enemy fire to aid the fallen marine. While tending to yet another fallen comrade, Petty Officer Emmott sustained a gunshot wound directly to his face, rendering him unconscious. After Petty Officer Emmott regained consciousness, he refused morphine in order to supervise the care of the other wounded marines. His courage and dedication to duty rallied the spirits of his squad mates as they were evacuated from the battlefield. The Silver Star Medal is the third-highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the U.S. Armed Forces for valor while engaged in an action against an enemy. Petty Officer Emmott is clearly deserving of the Silver Star medal for his actions to aid his fellow marines at his own personal risk. I join all Rhode Islanders in expressing deep appreciation and gratitude for Petty Officer Emmott's extraordinary commitment and service to our Nation. We also thank his family for their support and sacrifice. Congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, these are challenging and daunting times. While we are coming out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with continued high unemployment, our economy remains fragile. The fragility is not simply a macroeconomic phenomenon. It affects every family in this country who is worried about their employment, about the future of their children, and about whether their parents will still enjoy adequate coverage under Medicare and will still be able to draw some sustenance from Social Security checks. All these worries are in the daily lives of all Americans. We have to respond to that. The most salient fact that affects most Americans is the dramatic loss of employment, beginning in 2007, 2008, as the financial crisis engulfed this country. The U.S. economy has lost about 8.8 million private sector jobs just in 2008 and 2009 alone. These were times when a Republican President continued to accumulate huge deficit spending--most of it beginning with tax cuts, which my Republican colleagues supported enthusiastically; two wars that were not paid for, which was supported overwhelmingly by my Republican colleagues; and an expansion of Part D of Medicare, which again they supported. At no time did I hear the kind of outcry about growing deficits we are hearing today. We all understand that after the 10 years of this decade--8 of which were under the Presidency of George W. Bush--we are in a very difficult deficit position. That position is made worse because our economy has not generated enough jobs. One of the aspects of all these so-called plans--the cut, balance, whatever plan, and all the rest--should be the answer to the fundamental question: How is it going to help us grow our economy and grow jobs in Rhode Island, in Vermont, and in Wyoming? That seems to elude all the proponents of these plans at the moment. We have seen, since President Obama has taken office, some growth in employment, with 16 consecutive months of private sector job growth-- about 2.1 million jobs--in sharp contrast to what was happening during the last 2 years of President Bush's administration. But we have a long way to go. Indeed, we have a long way to go to make up for the surplus which President Bush and the Republican Congress inherited in 2001 and the deficit and economic destruction President Obama inherited when he took office. Our most immediate and pressing business is to reach some principled compromise on raising the debt ceiling--something that was done, I must say, rather routinely under President Bush about seven times, even though Democrats had very serious disagreements with him on tax policy--a tax policy that was increasing the deficit--and disagreement on wars, which were increasing the deficit as well as distorting our strategy internationally. At no time did we try to use the debt ceiling as the ultimate apocalyptic weapon to bring the President and, perhaps in doing so, even the country down. Yet I hear too many of my colleagues on the other side talking in those terms, particularly in the other Chamber. The bill that has been passed in the House is an attempt to shrink government, protect the wealthy and special interests in the Tax Code. It ties the debt ceiling increase to passage of a constitutional amendment that would require 38 States for ratification. Once again, we are taking what was routinely done and necessary so we don't default on our credit and making it the vehicle for altering the Constitution of the United States, of building in even additional protections in the Tax Code for our wealthier citizens. This approach they are taking will needlessly jeopardize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while it enshrines in the Constitution further protections for loopholes in our Tax Code and the tax benefits that many of the wealthy and the large corporations enjoy today. At the heart of what they are trying to propose in the House, and what they have sent to us, is to make it easier to cut these vital programs--a range of programs that involve transportation security agents at our airports, flight controllers in the towers, and can even involve the distribution of agriculture programs, which affect large parts of our country--not so much in my State but large parts of this country. All that would be subject to the calculation of cutting, cutting, cutting, while it would be extraordinarily difficult to raise revenues. I don't think that makes sense. I don't think that is what the American people want. From what I have seen from the polling, huge numbers of Americans are frankly saying the wealthiest in this country are enjoying huge tax benefits. I believe approximately 80 percent of the American public believes the first step we should take in balancing the budget is to raise the taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That is what they are saying. They are not saying cut benefits from people who are on the margin, who are struggling--the working poor, who may be just under or over the line to qualify for Medicaid benefits in a State and get health care for their children. I think the American people are smarter and more decent than some of the proposals that have surfaced around here. Again, the caps on spending are all dressed up as if they will have no real effect on the important programs, but they will have an effect on every program, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For people who are still struggling to find work, who are still struggling to find some type of traction in a difficult economy, these cuts can be devastating. Indeed, one of the challenges we have is to generate more growth in our economy again. When we pull back from spending in the economy, that will further accelerate the lack of demand and the lack of any incentive for private hiring. We are already seeing companies cut back and cut back. What are they saying? There is no demand. People aren't buying. People are saving. They sense--not sense, they know--they have to save more because they are not quite sure whether they will get all of their Social Security check or their Medicare benefits or any other benefits. That drives demand further down and slows the economy further down. The Republican plan includes overall spending caps that reach 19.9 percent of GDP in 2017, but we have to look at this number in historical perspective. Over the past 40 years, this rate of spending is not only lower than the average spending but, moreover, outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product have only declined to 19.9 percent or lower when unemployment has been 6 percent or below. That makes sense. When the American economy is working, people don't collect a lot of benefits. They have a job and so they do not need the kind of assistance they need today. This cap of 19.9 percent is totally out of the context when it comes to the present unemployment rate of 9.2 percent and, frankly, could perhaps cause an even larger unemployment rate if this program is enacted. Again, I don't think this makes sense in terms of the simple mathematics or the history or the underlying policies it would inevitably produce in the country. Yet still, in this Republican proposal, we are protecting the most special interests in this country--Big Oil and corporations. Those tax breaks, those tax perks, are still there, and they will continue to be there. We all recognize we have to make tough decisions about spending and about revenue. What I find acutely ironic is Democrats did that in 1993 and 1997 and we heard about it for years and years, with Republicans assailing us. Of course, by 1998, we had a surplus. We had an economy with an unemployment rate much closer to 5 percent than 10 percent. But all that hard work--without any assistance from the Republicans--was completely squandered beginning in January 2001. Now we are back to the same challenge we faced in 1993 and 1994. But we did it before by making tough decisions. We did it over several years. We did it by trying to balance both cutting expenditures and increasing appropriate revenue and also by recognizing that working Americans need the assistance and support of their government. So we can do it again, and I hope we do. But the first challenge--the one that has to be met--is to raise the debt ceiling. Defaulting on our debt would have catastrophic consequences. As we approach this deadline, the mere fact we haven't done anything yet is prompting credit agencies to suggest they will downgrade our credit rating. One of the most salient figures I have heard in this debate is that for every increase of 1 percent in our cost of credit and the interest we pay to borrow over 10 years, we will add $1.3 trillion to our deficit. The longer we avoid raising the debt ceiling, the closer we come to actually accelerating the deficit dramatically by increasing the rate we have to pay to borrow funds. The final point I would make is, raising the debt ceiling is not for new spending we want to borrow money for. This is for the accumulation of the deficit that began dramatically in January of 2001. So I would urge my colleagues to move promptly and responsibly to raise the debt ceiling and then to get to the hard, difficult work of balancing our budget, as we did, as Democrats, in the 1990s, and then later, in 1996- 97, with a Republican Congress, further adding to the deficit reduction under the leadership of President Clinton and not some magic plan that is produced overnight. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the regrettable and avoidable looming debt crisis if we don't take appropriate and timely steps beginning today and continuing over the next few days. As we continue to work to get our economy out from under a protracted and painful recession and on a more robust path of growth and job creation, not having an agreement to pay our country's bills has severe consequences. Defaulting could mean not only a potential stoppage of Social Security and veterans' benefits checks, but even more worrying than what could happen to bondholders and the middle class is the question of whether this could push us back into not only a severe recession but a worldwide economic catastrophe. We can look across at European governments struggling with sovereign debt crises. Also, one of the lessons we should have learned from the events of 2008, and particularly that fall, is that a lack of confidence and a vulnerability in one part of the world's financial systems can be magnified dramatically because of connections and interrelationships and could potentially produce a worldwide crisis. So this is an issue we have to address. A failure to act would cripple our government almost immediately. In August, if there is not a solution, it is estimated that spending in the economy could contract immediately from 40 to 50 percent. That means the U.S. economy would be hit with a loss of about $134 billion or about 10 percent of GDP for the month of August if we fail to find a solution. A 10-percent loss to August's GDP could bring our credit markets to a standstill and could lead to the loss of millions of additional jobs. One of the ironies of this debate is that the proposal by some on the other side to simply not pass debt limit legislation would be tolerable. In fact, it would be catastrophic. It would be catastrophic in terms of the very objective they are urging--controlling the deficit. As people drop out of the labor force, they require more benefits. They are not able legally or in a position to pay the taxes they were paying while working. In addition to that, it has been estimated that for every 1 percent increase in interest rates--and if we default, interest rates will go up on U.S. Treasuries--we will over 10 years accumulate $1.3 trillion in additional deficit. So in one fell swoop, the deficit hawks who are screaming so loudly today could put us on an even worse deficit trajectory. We all know the job of bringing this budget into alignment is not going to be easy. It involves many tradeoffs, some of which are likely to be very unpopular. It started in 1990, when Republicans joined us in a balanced approach. Along with my colleagues who served here in the 1990s under President Clinton, we then took some tough votes with not one Republican vote in support of us in 1993 when the process of balancing the budget continued. It takes time. It takes difficult votes. It was done in the 1990s. As we all know, when President George W. Bush assumed office, we were looking not at massive deficits, we were looking at a potential surplus of trillions of dollars over a 10-year period. But with the programs that President Bush, together with his Republican colleagues, embraced, of significant tax cuts, an expansion of entitlements, such as Part D Medicare which was not paid for, which was put on the credit card, and two unfunded wars, we are sitting today with this huge deficit. Frankly, this proposal to raise the debt limit is very simply paying for what President Bush and Republican Congresses did several years ago. Yet we find my colleagues on the other side saying: Oh, we cannot do that. We cannot do that without significant reductions in programs that are vital to Americans. We have already demonstrated--we did that in a continuing resolution that is covering this year's funding--we can and will make difficult cuts. We can reduce spending. But we have to do it in a measured way. The other thing we have to do is recognize that any solution, just as it was in the 1990s, will require revenues as well as expenditures. That is the only way the arithmetic will work. I find it sometimes ironic when I go around and talk and they say: Oh, if we don't solve this problem, you are putting all this burden on our grandchildren. Where was that spirit when the President cut taxes and began to eliminate a surplus that would have benefited our grandchildren? Where was that spirit when the President decided to engage in two major wars but not pay for them? Where was that spirit when the President decided he was going to expand entitlements and not pay for them? There were very few of my colleagues on the other side worrying about grandchildren then. Well, we do have to worry about our grandchildren. That means we have to start taking the tough steps today. We have to start making the sacrifices that will get our budget in order. Those sacrifices are not simply in cutting programs that are so vital not only to so many Americans but are so vital to our continuing economic growth. I am sure everyone here will say they have important highway projects in their States, they have important infrastructure projects in their States. Do we sacrifice those projects? If we do, then we sacrifice our economic efficiency, we sacrifice our productivity, and we give the results to our grandchildren: a decrepit infrastructure, with the inability to be competitive in a very competitive global economy. We have to move forward. We have to move forward to avoid a catastrophe to the economy if the debt ceiling is not raised. Also, we have to move forward to begin to balance our budget in the way it has been done in the past and, frankly, in the way it only can be done; that is, we have to start, beginning today, to make the sacrifices and make the tough choices that will provide a better future for our grandchildren. We have done it in the past. In 1990 and 1993 we took tough steps, as I mentioned before, to begin to balance the budget. And in 1997, with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, we took additional steps. We can do it, and we must do it. The idea that we are going to default is difficult to imagine, but, still, there are those out there on the other side who are saying they will not vote for raising the credit limit in any way, shape, or form. I think that is irresponsible. I think we have to be responsible. We have stood up before. We have taken tough votes. We have to do it again. Failing to do that puts a huge burden on the middle class. The wealthiest amongst us may be able to negotiate through the vagaries of what might happen after a credit default by the United States, but for Social Security recipients, for military retirees, for those people who are looking for the basic services of government--transit to get to work, the ability to get on a plane--who is going to be manning the TSA posts if the government cannot essentially pay its debts? All these issues have to be considered. We have to, as I said, talk about revenues too. It is astounding that people would literally be suggesting we cut back Social Security benefits, that we cut back retirement benefits, that we do all these things at the same time we are providing about $4 billion in annual tax incentives to the oil industry, when the price of oil is at record levels, their profits are at record levels. These are a host of tax provisions that do not make us anymore productive. In fact, one might argue they do not even encourage employment here in the United States. One could make the suggestion, at least the way we set up the system, that it might encourage employment overseas, and then we repatriate the profits here. Well, that might be fine for the big companies and the executives, but what about Americans who are looking for jobs? What about Americans who are looking just to get by? We also have to recognize that some of the proposals we have made--in fact, all of them the President has talked about with respect to revenues--would not be effective immediately because we are still in a period of very fragile economic growth. They would be effective in 2013. But they would go to that long-term goal of deficit reduction, which we can achieve, but it will take time, just as it took time in the 1990s. But even these proposals to close loopholes, which are, in my view, very difficult to defend--and to do so not immediately but several years from now--even these proposals are being resisted by Republicans. That does not make sense to me. I also do not think it makes sense to a growing number of Americans across this country. They want us to be responsible. They want us to be able to pay our debts. Then they want us to get our debts under control. They recognize that requires not just good will and good wishes, it requires real, difficult choices and sacrifices. We are seeing now an economy that is racking up huge profits for industry. The nonfinancial members of the S&P 500 index are sitting on about $1.1 trillion in cash. The Federal Reserve indicated similarly that nonfinancial businesses have about $1.9 trillion in cash defined as liquid assets. Record profits are being accumulated by corporations. All of this is good, but it is much better if those cash resources and profits are put back into the American economy in terms of creating jobs. That should be part of our effort too, not simply reducing the deficit, but reducing it in a way where we grow jobs here in the United States. That is also at the heart of what the President is talking about in terms of his efforts. We are on the verge of tough votes and tough choices, and I hope we make those tough choices and tough votes. We do have to pay our debts, but then we have to get our debt under control. We have done it. We did it in the 1990s. I would argue without some of the policies that were enthusiastically embraced by many who are here today, who are talking about sacrifice for the middle class but no sacrifice for the very wealthy, we would not be in the same position we are in today. I believe we are at a very critical moment. We have to resolve this issue by August 2. I hope we can do that. I hope it will turn on the same kind of sensible, balanced approach that we adopted previously in the 1990s. We have to go ahead and think in terms of restoring our financial house and then getting our American people back to work. If we do that, I think we will fulfill not only the best hopes and wishes of the American people but their strong desires. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2011. For nearly a decade, I have worked to correct a serious flaw in our fisheries management system, which denies the fishermen of my state a voice in the management of many of the stocks that they catch and rely upon for their livelihoods. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the State. However, while Rhode Island has an even larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounts for approximately a quarter of the catch from this fishery, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In act, only one State, New Jersey, lands more MAFMC regulated species than Rhode Island. This legislation offers a simple solution. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. Pursuant to a provision included in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 at my request, the MAFMC reported to Congress on this issue in 2007 and confirmed that there is a precedent for this proposal. As the report notes, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries they depend on. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. 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 bipartisan legislation to provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Bingaman, Cardin, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. As a result, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and dwindling sources of funding for these critical programs. The legislation that we are introducing today would address these two concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups. The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .''. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future. Environmental education is an important part of the solution to many of the problems facing our country today. It helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. It promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools and teachers, reach out to children to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Partnering with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan. Similar efforts are taking place across the Nation. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 40 states have taken steps towards developing similar plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids. That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2011. For nearly a decade, I have worked to correct a serious flaw in our fisheries management system, which denies the fishermen of my state a voice in the management of many of the stocks that they catch and rely upon for their livelihoods. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the State. However, while Rhode Island has an even larger stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounts for approximately a quarter of the catch from this fishery, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In act, only one State, New Jersey, lands more MAFMC regulated species than Rhode Island. This legislation offers a simple solution. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. Pursuant to a provision included in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 at my request, the MAFMC reported to Congress on this issue in 2007 and confirmed that there is a precedent for this proposal. As the report notes, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries they depend on. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. 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 bipartisan legislation to provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Bingaman, Cardin, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. As a result, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and dwindling sources of funding for these critical programs. The legislation that we are introducing today would address these two concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups. The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .''. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future. Environmental education is an important part of the solution to many of the problems facing our country today. It helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. It promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools and teachers, reach out to children to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Partnering with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan. Similar efforts are taking place across the Nation. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 40 states have taken steps towards developing similar plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids. That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Whitehouse in welcoming Bishop Wolf to the Senate today. I commend Senator Whitehouse for his invitation. Bishop Wolf is not only a pastoral leader in our community, she is also a great community leader. She not only preaches the gospel, she lives the gospel. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, she went on the mean streets of Providence, and there are such streets in every town in this country, to experience firsthand the travails and the troubles of people just trying to get by. That experience informed her ministry and informed her public positions, and we thank her for that. She has a global vision as well as a vision in Rhode Island. That global vision is a world inspired by American actions that is peaceful and progressive and finds opportunity for all. So on behalf of the people of Rhode Island, I wish to thank her for her service, and I thank her especially for the grace she has brought to us today and has brought the State of Rhode Island as a result of her service.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Layoff Prevention Act, legislation to strengthen and expand work sharing programs to keep Americans on the job and provide employers with a practical alternative to layoffs that is good for business. While the U.S. has experienced 15 consecutive months of private- sector job creation, too many Americans, nearly 14 million, remain out of work. Like everyone in my State, I am fully focused on finding ways to create jobs. As we work to stabilize employment, our efforts should also be aimed at preventing the loss of jobs in the first place. This is where work sharing programs make a real difference. If you are a business owner faced with the prospect of having to let go some percentage of your highly-skilled workforce because of a rough patch, work sharing allows you to keep your workers on the job with reduced hours until you can bring them back on full time when business rebounds. In this way, a business does not lose out on the considerable expense and time it has put in to hire and train these workers. This initiative helps workers by lessening the impact of those reduced hours on workers and their families because workers receive a proportionate share of unemployment benefits. Work sharing has proven to be effective not only in my State of Rhode Island, but in the more than 20 States and the District of Columbia that have adopted it across the Nation. At the height of the recession in 2009, there was a significant jump in employer participation, demonstrating the program's value to small, medium, and large businesses. Indeed, according to the Department of Labor, work sharing programs saved approximately 165,000 jobs in 2009, nearly triple the number the year prior. As the overall economy improved in 2010, the system continued to be a valuable tool, saving 100,000 jobs. But these numbers could be much larger if more States adopted work sharing. Although work sharing has played an increased role in preventing layoffs, it remains underutilized. Some States are not actively promoting its use; while in many other States it is simply not available. Despite these limitations, the current economic circumstances have shined a bright light on the value of job sharing and these initiatives have been front and center as States are increasingly turning to them to prevent job losses. A growing number of States with Republican and Democratic Governors have taken action. In just the past few weeks, Maine and Pennsylvania have enacted laws to create work sharing systems, following Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire last year. The President has also recognized the potential of work sharing to stave off further job losses by including in his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal that expanded on legislation I introduced last Congress. The bill I am introducing today along with Senators Harkin, Murray, Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Whitehouse, Leahy, Casey, and Blumenthal builds on this momentum and encourages States with existing lay off prevention systems to utilize them more frequently and incentivizes States without work sharing to create them. It strengthens the legislation that I authored last Congress by including changes suggested by the business community, States, economists, and other stakeholders. As in past versions, it provides States that have approved programs with temporary Federal financing for 100 percent of work sharing benefits paid to workers, limited to 26 weeks worth of benefits spread out over the course of a year. This financing is available for three years. While the bill is designed to incentivize States to enact permanent laws to create work sharing, the bill also includes provisions to allow States to get work sharing up and running more quickly. Specifically, a State can reach an agreement with the Department of Labor to create a temporary program under which they would receive 50 percent Federal financing. This financing incentive would be available for 2 years, and such States would be eligible for a third year of 100 percent federal funding if they pass a permanent law. In addition, the bill provides flexible grants to State labor agencies at a time when they are doing more with less. States that enact work sharing programs are eligible for grants to improve implementation and administration, and there are also grants for promotion and enrollment. These resources will play a critical role in ensuring that States are efficiently able to inform employers of its benefits, and encourage greater use of work sharing to stave off layoffs. Moreover, as work sharing programs take hold, States will see their unemployment insurance systems less burdened as fewer individuals will need to avail themselves of full unemployment benefits. Simply put, this legislation will help more workers, businesses, and communities stay afloat, while the country works its way through these tough economic times. Moreover, the bill lays a needed foundation to protect businesses and workers from any future recession. It is a win- win for all. First, work sharing helps speed economic recovery. Economist Mark Zandi estimates that temporary financing of work share offers a very high ``bang for the buck'' of $1.69. That is, every $1 devoted to finance State work share programs results in $1.69 in real GDP. Second, work sharing allows businesses to retain skilled workers, temporarily cut costs, and maintain employee morale. Third, it keeps people working while receiving a share of unemployment benefits to make up for lost wages and retaining health insurance and retirement benefits. This means workers can continue to pay their mortgages and bills, provide for their families, and support businesses in their local communities. Keeping workers attached to the workforce is a key element of ensuring economic growth. This legislation does not reinvent the wheel, it is not a mandate on employers or States, and it is not telling anyone what they must do. Instead, it takes a proven jobs-saving initiative, that is increasingly being used by States, and strengthens and expands it. It gives more employers in more States the opportunity to take advantage of its benefits. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation. It is my hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner as has been accomplished in the more than 20 States where work sharing has been adopted and take swift action to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Murray, Rockefeller, and Whitehouse, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act bill. Our bipartisan legislation will reauthorize and strengthen the school library program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; awarding grants for a period of three years; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners. The SKILLS Act will also strengthen Title I by asking state and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students develop digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the state, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation will broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians. Since 1965, more than 60 education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college and careers. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills. The SKILLS Act will build on the success of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries programs that was part of the No Child Left Behind Act and is the only Federal initiative solely dedicated to supporting and enhancing our Nation's school libraries. The Department of Education's January 2009 evaluation of the program found that it had been successful in improving the quality of those school libraries receiving the grants. Unfortunately, even in the face of all the evidence of the role school libraries play in boosting student achievement and the efficacy of the program itself, the Administration opted not to use its authority to provide funding for the school library program under the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. This was a very short-sighted decision. Since its enactment in 2002, the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program has been making a difference for students across the country. In Rhode Island, for instance, this program supported the Get READY, Get Ready, Empowered And Determined Youth, project of the Woonsocket school district, which encompassed a comprehensive strategy to improve the reading skills and academic achievement of 6,296 students, in grades K-12, by addressing critical elements of an effective school library program. Grant funds allowed the district to replace outdated library materials, add one to two books per student at each library, extend library hours, and add new computers to connect students to information at other libraries. The funds also increased resources for professional development in technology training for teachers and librarians. Absent the Federal program, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act. 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 with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Murray, Rockefeller, and Whitehouse, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act bill. Our bipartisan legislation will reauthorize and strengthen the school library program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; awarding grants for a period of three years; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners. The SKILLS Act will also strengthen Title I by asking state and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students develop digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the state, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation will broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians. Since 1965, more than 60 education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college and careers. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills. The SKILLS Act will build on the success of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries programs that was part of the No Child Left Behind Act and is the only Federal initiative solely dedicated to supporting and enhancing our Nation's school libraries. The Department of Education's January 2009 evaluation of the program found that it had been successful in improving the quality of those school libraries receiving the grants. Unfortunately, even in the face of all the evidence of the role school libraries play in boosting student achievement and the efficacy of the program itself, the Administration opted not to use its authority to provide funding for the school library program under the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. This was a very short-sighted decision. Since its enactment in 2002, the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program has been making a difference for students across the country. In Rhode Island, for instance, this program supported the Get READY, Get Ready, Empowered And Determined Youth, project of the Woonsocket school district, which encompassed a comprehensive strategy to improve the reading skills and academic achievement of 6,296 students, in grades K-12, by addressing critical elements of an effective school library program. Grant funds allowed the district to replace outdated library materials, add one to two books per student at each library, extend library hours, and add new computers to connect students to information at other libraries. The funds also increased resources for professional development in technology training for teachers and librarians. Absent the Federal program, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the bills from a decade of ineffective tax cuts and unpaid wars and a recession fueled by lax regulation have come due. I did not support the policies that generated these bills, but pretending these bills do not have to be paid is not an option. Indeed, playing chicken, literally, with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is a recipe for disaster. If the U.S. defaults on its debt, every single expert tells us, it will have a huge and immediate impact on the lives of every American all across this country, from the poorest to the most well off. And particularly for those who are struggling, it will be devastating at a time when they can least afford it. Not only could it cause a stoppage of Social Security and veterans' benefits checks, but, more systemically, it would undermine our Nation's opportunity to build a more lasting and more prosperous recovery. We have seen some progress, but it is not enough. This step, if we default, would seriously undermine our ability to function as an economy and would seriously, perhaps decisively affect our ability to mount and continue to mount a reasonably recovery. We are still recovering from the worst depression since the 1930s. Much of it is based on the policies I mentioned previously: two unfunded wars, the expansion of an entitlement program that was unpaid for, deep tax cuts that were unpaid for--all of it put on the tab, and the tab is coming due. But now to suggest that we walk away from our obligation to provide at least the legal means to pay our debt is irresponsible. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about taking a scalpel to wasteful spending and about the primacy of severely curtailing investments in our society. They continue to talk about an economic philosophy that I think has been disproven by the last several years, particularly from 2000, when President Bush and the Republican Congress inherited a projected multitrillion-dollar surplus and turned it into a huge deficit under the premise that these types of cuts in taxes, these types of policies would stimulate jobs. In fact, there has been talk that we are now focusing on cutting spending on Medicare and Medicaid, which is so central to all Americans. It is difficult also to imagine that they are asking for these cuts at a time when so many families throughout this country are struggling--struggling to stay in their homes, struggling simply to pay their bills each week, struggling to ensure their children can continue on with their education. All of this needs a government that supports these Americans, not reneging on commitments we have made, particularly commitments we have made financially to essentially pay for the obligations that have been run up, particularly beginning in 2000 and continuing through the Bush administration. We all understand we have to reach a principled compromise, but in that compromise, as so many of my colleagues have suggested, an exclusive focus on cutting expenditures will not get us there, I think, simply based on the arithmetic, but more than that, it will impose huge burdens on families who are struggling, and it will continue to reward the most prosperous in this Nation. I do not think that is the right way to do it or the fair way to do it. The priorities I have heard expressed on the other side are to continue to talk about very deep tax cuts, at a time when we have the lowest revenues we have had in decades, and then talk about cutting expenditures--education, health care, and, indeed, under their proposed budget, Medicare and Medicaid, which is so central to so many people. We know we have to focus on not just expenditures but also revenue, and we also have to begin the very difficult and arduous task of entitlement reform. We began that in the last Congress. In fact, I think it is ironic, as I recall the debate on the affordable care act, that most of the amendments my colleagues on the other side were offering were to send back to committee proposed changes in Medicare that would have reduced costs and, I would argue, would actually have improved quality. That was their focus. Now their focus has suddenly shifted to how we must cut Medicare and Medicaid. What we have to do is provide the same kind of reasonable, balanced approach that took place in the 1990s. Again, without any Republican support in 1993 and 1994 but with a Democratic President and Democratic votes, we were able to begin to balance the budget. It was a multiyear process. It required difficult choices. But we have to continue to pursue that path of a balanced, reasonable response to this problem. As I said before, one of the issues that is so central to this country is not directly related just to the issue of the deficit, it is also related to jobs. They are obviously closely interrelated. The more jobs we have, the more people who are participating in the economy, the better our fiscal position is in Washington. Sadly, what we saw, particularly at the tail end of the Bush administration, was a collapse in our jobs market. The U.S. economy lost 8.7 million private sector jobs in 2008 and 2009. We experienced-- under the Bush administration principally--25 consecutive months of job losses. That, again, has contributed to these huge deficits. If people do not work, they do not contribute to the taxes. If people do not work, they are likely to get unemployment benefits. People who lose part of their wages may qualify for other programs. Since the President has come to office, we have seen a rebound. We have not seen the full, robust recovery we need, but we have seen a rebound. We gained 2.081 million jobs, a little over 2 million jobs in 2010 and 2011. We have experienced 15 consecutive months of private sector job creation--not enough, but we have reversed the collapse and 25 months of job decline by creating jobs and continuing on a sustained basis as a result of difficult decisions that were made by President Obama and the Democratic Congress in the Recovery Act. My home State of Rhode Island has been particularly hard hit by the policies we saw in the first part of this decade. We have the third highest unemployment rate at 10.9 percent. We have seen a significant foreclosure problem. We have seen very crippling impacts on the working families of Rhode Island. Now we hear that the only solution we have and the best way to correct jobs is to continue to do what was done under the Bush administration: Let's just cut taxes, particularly for the wealthiest Americans. The evidence suggests that does not produce the kinds of jobs--not even the kinds of jobs we have seen in the last 15 months. The economy did not add a single new job during the 3 years under the Bush tax cuts. The economy had 132 million jobs in June 2001 when we passed--against my opposition--the Bush tax cuts. That was the month it was first signed into law. Three years later, in June 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. We actually lost some jobs. If you take a step back and look at the course of the entire Bush Presidency, from January 2001 through January 2009, there was a decline in the number of private sector jobs of approximately 650,000. That is over the course of the whole administration. In fact, the only net job creation that occurred was in the public sector. Nearly 1.75 million government jobs were created over the course of the Bush Presidency. Revenue as a percentage of our economy, as a percentage of GDP, was 14.9 percent in 2010. It is the lowest level since 1950 when it dropped to 14.4 percent. By comparison, government revenue was averaging about 18 percent over the previous 30 years. So you see, under the Bush policies, which essentially my colleagues want to emulate, reconstitute, no job growth and a significant decline in revenue. At a time when revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest it has been in 60 years, now we are talking about further tax cuts in the Republican budget, but we are certainly talking--my colleagues are talking about maintaining the current taxes. Frankly, there are so many tax expenditures that my colleagues talked about that are not worthy of retention, that are loopholes that we can, in fact, eliminate, and we should. Some examples: tax break for people who breed alpacas; deductions for film and TV production; favorable tax depreciation for racehorse owners, horse breeders tax credit; an exemption for wooden practice arrows used by children; NASCAR motorsport racing facility tax credit; withholding tax breaks on horse and dog track winnings. The list can go on and on.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his deference. We understand we have to make tough choices. They have to include expenditure cuts. We have already started with the continuing resolution of the last year where we reduced spending significantly. But we have to have revenue on the table. As Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said: [ . . . ] a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile economy. We need to create jobs. We need to balance deficit reduction with job creation. We need to put everything on the table, and we need to recognize that the consequences of default on our debt will be staggering, felt by every American. One figure that continues to be impressed upon me is the fact that for every 1 percent increase in the interest rate over the 10-year period, we increase our deficit by over $1 trillion. I think the first response to a default would be a rise in the interest rates we have to pay for our debt. I would urge progress on the efforts to have a comprehensive solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the U.S. Army. LTG Robert E. Durbin will retire on August 1 after more than 36 years of distinguished service to the Army and the Nation. Throughout his career, General Durbin has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions to which he has contributed. General Durbin, a resident of Pennsylvania, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1975 and then went on to receive a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University. He has served in a variety of command and staff assignments, leading men and women during times of peace and war. Over the course of almost four decades of service, he has commanded at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels. Furthermore, he served as the commanding general of the Combined Security Transition Command--Afghanistan, the command that plays such a critical role in training the Afghan National Security Forces. He subsequently became the commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley. General Durbin has spent the last 3 years serving as the director of the Army's Office of Business Transformation, where he was responsible for leading the Army's efforts to operate more cost-consciously while still providing the best trained and equipped force. During one of the most challenging economic periods in our history, General Durbin has helped foster and institutionalize better business practices among our Army's senior leaders. His personal efforts were instrumental in leading the Army through significant changes in the way it grows, resets, modernizes, and transforms. He made these processes more relevant to current operational requirements and significantly increased the Army's capability to support combatant commanders. In all of his assignments, General Durbin has provided outstanding leadership, integrity, and sound advice on numerous issues of importance to the Army and our nation. I would like to thank General Durbin, his wife Diana, and his entire family for their commitment, sacrifices, and service to our nation. Congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danielle DeFant, a fellow with my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Leon Panetta as the next Secretary of Defense. Director Panetta comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the Department of Defense and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront, Mr. Panetta will oversee the completion of our direct military operations in Iraq, the beginning of the transition of our forces out of Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the reduction of our defense budget. I have known Leon Panetta for many years, and I know he is particularly well suited to address all of these challenges. He is a man of great intellect, of great decency, and great determination. At the end of this year, for example, in compliance with the Status of Forces Agreement, we will complete the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq and hand over primary responsibility for our ongoing relationship with Iraq to the Department of State. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi Government will ask us to extend our military presence past December 31. But for now, we are thoroughly and determinately preparing our troops to leave. Having served as a member of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Panetta certainly understands the importance of this transition and will carry it out. As the next Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta will also continue to focus our efforts on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are facing a critical turning point in our operations. This week, we expect President Obama to announce his plan to begin reducing our force levels in Afghanistan this summer, a commitment he made in his speech at West Point in 2009. Along with the reduction in forces we must sustain the security gains that we have accomplished during the past year and further build the capacity of the Afghan forces so they are able to take full responsibility for their own security. Mr. Panetta understands how important it is for all of our agencies to work together in this effort and all security missions; that using military force may be our primary weapon of securing areas but enduring success comes from coordination among the intelligence and law enforcement communities, from effective diplomacy, and from assistance programs administered by the Department of State and the USAID. The conditions on the ground in Afghanistan are directly related to our ability to successfully attack the terrorist networks that are operating along the border in Pakistan. In his current position as Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has reinvigorated these efforts, most notably with the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, I believe when history looks back, outside of the critical and ultimate decision by the President of the United States, one of the most important roles played in this effort to prepare the way for those courageous SEALs was the steady leadership of Leon Panetta at the Central Intelligence Agency. He understands the complexities of our relationship with Pakistan and, indeed, throughout the world. This expertise will be critical as we move forward, and critical for our next Secretary of Defense. He will also lead the Department of Defense in preparing for the emerging threats to our national security, such as attacks to our cyber infrastructure. Indeed, every branch of government is working to define the roles various organizations will play in protecting people, infrastructure, and information within cyberspace. During his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I discussed with Director Panetta the strategy the Department of Defense would employ in confronting the potential of a cyber attack against the United States. He responded in no uncertain terms. His words: I have often said that there is a strong likelihood that the next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack that cripples our power system, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. This is a real possibility in today's world. And as a result, I think we have to aggressively be able to counter that. Indeed, Mr. Panetta understands the future as well as the present, and he will bring his experience as well as his vision to bear on the emerging challenges that face the United States. Perhaps most challenging of all, Leon Panetta will lead the Department at a time of great fiscal constraints. As our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be careful to do so in a way that removes unsustainable costs without losing vital capability. As a result of the high operational tempo and the duration of multiple overseas operations, all of our services are facing serious reset and recapitalization needs. Serious decisions will have to be made to ensure that we have the right systems in place to meet the threats we face, all at a price level that we can afford. Having served as the House Budget Committee chairman, and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, there is no one who has more knowledge, more experience, more sense of the details than Leon Panetta, and I believe he is the most well qualified individual to tackle the huge budgetary issues that are facing the Department of Defense. Leon will have an extraordinary role to play, particularly in the wake of the extraordinary service of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. I can't think of anyone I respect or admire more. I can't think of anyone who has served this country with more distinction, who has served with more selfless dedication to the Nation, and fundamentally who has made his decisions knowing full well that at the end of the day young Americans in the uniform of the United States will carry out his orders. Bob Gates has done a superb job. But I have every confidence that Leon Panetta will continue to carry on, will continue to meet those standards, will continue to lead the Department of Defense with distinction, with dedication and great loyalty, just as Secretary Gates has done, and ultimately we will know that at the end of all the decisions emanating from the Pentagon there is a young American willing and able and ready to serve, to support this Nation and defend it. With that, I rise to express my great support for Secretary-designee Panetta and wish him well in all of his endeavors and pledge to work with him closely. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today along with my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, to help mark the 350th anniversary of the settlement of Block Island, RI. Block Island sits 12 miles south of coastal Rhode Island, and for over three centuries has contributed to the economic and ecological vitality of my home State. It has a rich history. In 1614, the Dutch merchant and explorer Adriaen Block charted the Island, which is named for him. In 1661 colonists from Massachusetts sailed to Block Island and established a community that would later become the town of New Shoreham. During the Revolutionary War, Block Islanders warned American soldiers of approaching British ships by lighting fires on Beacon Hill, the island's highest point. And, over the past 200 years, Block Island has constructed two lighthouses that have provided safe passage for countless sailors and travelers. Today, Block Island is home to over 1,000 permanent residents and welcomes up to 20,000 visitors each day during tourist season. Block Island has been graced by visits by two sitting Presidents-- President Ulysses S. Grant in 1875 and in 1999 by President William Jefferson Clinton. I was pleased to have guided President Clinton as well as First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is now Secretary of State, around the Mohegan Bluffs and the historic Southeast Lighthouse, which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean, during their visit. Throughout the years, the local community has worked hard to preserve the Island's natural beauty and landmarks. In the 1980s and early 1990s Captain John R. Lewis, a Block Island resident known to all as Rob, spearheaded a campaign to save the Southeast Lighthouse, which was threatened by an eroding shoreline. With a coalition of friends and local residents, Rob worked to secure nearly $1 million in Federal funding and he persuaded Block Islanders to help raise $270,000 through donations. I must also applaud the efforts of John Chafee and Claiborne Pell, my predecessors--particularly Senator Chafee--who worked hard to ensure support for the movement of the Southeast Lighthouse. Their efforts, in conjunction with Federal and State leaders, saved this historic landmark, which still stands today. Over 40 percent of the Island is now preserved land. The Island boasts dramatic bluffs, pristine beaches, and 25 miles of public hiking trails. Over 40 kinds of endangered species call Block Island home and thousands of migratory birds pass through each year making this a truly exceptional place. Indeed, Block Island was included on the Nature Conservancy's list of ``Last Great Places.'' This honor identifies sites in the Western Hemisphere with significant biodiversity and ecosystems with rare or endangered species. Block Island is not only unique for its rich history; it also has a beautiful landscape. Generations of Block Islanders have preserved what the Narragansett Indian tribe called ``God's Little Island.'' As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of Block Island's settlement, it is fitting that we recognize and congratulate Block Islanders for all of their efforts to preserve one of our country's most treasured places. I yield to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I am recognized, Senator Whitehouse be recognized--we are speaking on the same topic--for up to 10 minutes and, at the conclusion of that time, Senator Alexander from Tennessee be recognized.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Peak, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.