Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John ``Jack'' McConnell to serve as a district court judge in the State of Rhode Island. We have heard and we will hear a number of very strong statements about this nomination. I would argue very vociferously that many assertions that have been made are inaccurate at best and they are not shared by the legal and business community in Rhode Island. In fact, Jack McConnell is supported publicly and enthusiastically by the two former Republican attorneys general of Rhode Island, Arlene Violet and Jeffrey Pine. He is not opposed by the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, which knows him and has worked with him. He is supported by our legal community and our business community. He has received the strong endorsement of our leading newspaper, the Providence Journal, which has a record of moderation, indeed if not conservatism, in terms of their judgments about judicial candidates and some issues, but certainly moderation. Later, Senator Whitehouse and I will respond specifically about the assertions and concerns, but I think it is time at this juncture to make a few brief points about where we are at this Senate. We are at a point where we might be crossing a bridge from which we cannot return; that, unlike our previous history, district judges will be subject routinely to cloture motions because one faction or another decides, not on the merits but procedurally, they should not go forward. Let me make a few points. Senator Whitehouse and I recommended Mr. McConnell to the President after publicly seeking applicants, talking to attorneys throughout our State, interviewing almost every single applicant. We took this decision seriously, as you would expect. We know it is a reflection both upon ourselves and upon our State. From this pool of applicants we selected Mr. McConnell because we found him to be among the best attorneys of the State, a pillar of our community, one of the most generous philanthropists in our State--and in most cases anonymously--and in many cases not simply writing a check but standing in a soup line early in the morning handing out food to people who need it, without acclaim, without fanfare. This is the character of the individual, and character, I think, ultimately is the test of a judge. He has a true desire to serve this country. Indeed, Mr. McConnell has practiced law for decades. He has never been subject to an ethics claim, a malpractice claim, a rule 11 motion, and most importantly he has never had a motion for sanctions filed against him concerning his conduct in any litigation in which he has been involved. He has a spotless record. Moreover, we selected Mr. McConnell because we knew, based upon all of his personal background, his sworn testimony, that he will follow the precedents of the law and of the First Circuit Court of Appeals and of the United States Supreme Court. This is not something we take lightly and it is not something Mr. McConnell takes lightly. We know and he knows that when you step upon the bench you assume huge responsibilities. You have to not only appear to be impartial, you have to in every word and deed go the extra mile to demonstrate that impartiality, that you are not favoring anyone. He is prepared to do that. In fact, I think that is part and parcel of the nature of this gentleman. Now, we have to stop here and ask ourselves collectively, do we want to go ahead and take this step of cloture for district court nominees? Do we really want to add another front in the battle of partisan political ``gotcha''? Do they really want to cast aside, for example, the blue slip process which allows Senators from a home State, particularly with a district judge, to say yea or nay? It is a process that has been in the Senate, in the informal culture of the Senate for years and years. Do they want to deny a nominee who has been reported out of committee on a bipartisan vote three times, not once, an up-or- down vote? I heard and I have heard for years--particularly under President Bush--many people coming to this floor and claiming everyone who is nominated and comes out of committee deserves an up-or-down vote, particularly a district court nominee, especially a district court nominee. So this is where we are poised--to reject all of them, to enter a new dimension of controversy and conflict in the Senate. We have a long history in the Senate of precedents and tradition when it comes to nominations, particularly district court nominations. In my State, my predecessors, men such as John Chafee and Claiborne Pell and Lincoln Chafee and John Pastore, clearly adhered to those standards. And we have a record--a strong record of judges in our State, and they have come from different backgrounds. They have come from the practice of corporate law. They have come from being a former Federal attorney. They have come from being a significant and principal attorney for a major insurance company. They have come from a vast array of legal backgrounds and professions. One thing they have had in common, and which is shared by Jack McConnell, is integrity and commitment to the law. And that we insist upon. We have long recognized that these district judges serve a critical role, and I think we all recognize, too, here as Senators that this is a special role of the home State Senator. We understand that at the circuit level, when judges have to consider issues of constitutionality, where major policies issues could be resolved--in fact, finally resolved, at least for that circuit--we understand there is another added dimension. But with district courts, we have traditionally recognized the judgment of not only the local Senators but the judgment of the local legal community. And once again, here, both the legal community in Rhode Island and, I cannot emphasis enough, two former Republican Attorneys General, who know him well, who have observed him closely, have come forward of their own volition and enthusiastically supported his candidacy. They know him as a lawyer. They know him as a man of integrity and honor and decency. There are a number of my colleagues on the other side who recognize this, and they have been very forthright in making the point about the precipice that we are on and how that is not a precedent we want to establish. I thank them for that. I thank them for their consideration. They have literally adhered to consistently--not just in the past but now--the notion that when a judge is given a qualified approval by the ABA, when a nominee goes through the committee, comes to this floor at the district level, that is when a vote should take place. And how you vote on final passage is a function of many things--your judicial philosophy versus their judicial philosophy, your view of the judgment they have and the responsibility a district judge has. Now, I think we have again been engaged in difficult debates, and they have been particularly difficult when it has come to the circuit court. I do think we recognize collectively that because of the nature of the circuit court, there is a difference. This is the gateway, and many times, the cases never go beyond the circuit court. Constitutional law, principles that apply to whole circuits are affirmed by these panels of judges, and there is a different standard. But we have never really applied that standard to the district court. We have relied--all my colleagues have--on the ability of home State Senators, together with their local lawyers, together with their local communities, to make recommendations to serve on the district court. Let me point out how extraordinarily unusual the vote tomorrow will be. From our reference, talking to the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Library, as far as we can consider, there have been only three cloture votes on Senate nominees for district courts in the history of the Senate--three times. Tomorrow will be the fourth. Oh, by the way, all three of those individuals ultimately received confirmation. It appears from our reconstruction that they were caught up in a procedural discussion of who should go first; this person should not go first until others had been considered. All three, after the procedural votes on cloture, were confirmed. But it is quite clear that at least on the part of some, this cloture vote tomorrow is designed to stop and end the confirmation of Mr. McConnell. That would be a first as far as we know in our reconstruction of the history of the Senate. So we are facing this question, the question of whether we want to establish this precedent, whether we want to disregard the record of this individual, who is a man of integrity and honor, who is strongly supported by our local business community, who is strongly supported by Republican officeholders as well as Democratic officeholders, who has gained the trust and the respect of those who know him best, and who will serve with distinction and integrity on the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. That is the big issue we face tomorrow. Later, we will come down and we will respond to those issues of specific detail. But I can recall not too long ago when there was a group of Republicans and Democrats who came together and decided that these types of decisions should not be subject to procedural defeats, but they should be based on the merits. That was the Gang of 14's work on trying to pull together a consensus on judges. I also know that both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell are working with a group of people on a bipartisan understanding regarding executive nominations--not judicial nominations but executive nominations. These are very hopeful and positive signs. I hope we can build on that process and not tomorrow take a step which I think historically is atypical, unique, in fact, a step in the very wrong direction. We will come back again, and we will talk about the specifics of Mr. McConnell's nomination and these assertions. But all of these allegations cast, again, not only a cloud upon Mr. McConnell but on the ABA process which looks very carefully at a candidate in terms of their judicial skill but also their character, their integrity, their ability to serve, and the process here in the Senate through the committee process. So I would hope that we can favorably consider--in fact, I would hope, as is typical, that we would move quickly to a final passage vote, as we do with 99 out of 100 district court nominees. But this is a serious issue. I fear we are on the precipice of taking a step that will come back repeatedly to haunt us and undercut a custom and a tradition and a sense of this Senate which is necessary to maintain, not to abandon. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to SPC Dennis ``Danny'' Poulin, a Rhode Islander who served in the Massachusetts National Guard. On March 28, Specialist Poulin was a gunner in an MRAP when it rolled over in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. He was medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where, tragically, he died 2 days later but surrounded by his loving family. He was laid to rest today in Rhode Island. Specialist Poulin grew up in Pawtucket, RI, and graduated in 2004 from Tolman High School. He joined the National Guard in 2008 and was promoted to specialist in May of 2010. As a member of the Massachusetts National Guard Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 181st Infantry Regiment, he deployed to Afghanistan in July 2010. Each generation of Americans is called upon to protect and sustain our democracy. And there are no greater heroes than the men and women who have worn the uniform of this Nation and who have sacrificed for this country to keep it safe and to keep it free. It is our duty to protect the freedom they sacrificed their lives for through our service, our citizenship. We must continue to keep their memories alive and honor their heroism. Today, our thoughts are with Specialist Poulin's mother Doris, his father Richard, his sisters, Jennifer and Angelique, his longtime girlfriend Ashley and their son Nikolous, and all of his family, friends, and his comrades-in-arms. We join them in commemorating his sacrifice and honoring his example of selfless service, of love, and of courage that he has demonstrated to all of us. Specialist Poulin is one among many Rhode Islanders who have proven their loyalty, their integrity, and their personal courage by giving the last full measure of their lives in service to their country in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and throughout the centuries. Today, we honor his memory and honor the memory of those who have served and those who have sacrificed. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We are on the verge of a possible government shutdown, which is extraordinarily regrettable. Controlling the deficit and paying down the debt is a critical priority of this country and must be done. It is a difficult challenge, but not insurmountable. We have done it before. In the 1990s I was a Member of the House of Representatives under President Clinton. We were able to push through an economic program that did not focus exclusively and entirely, as the Republican proposal does, on domestic discretionary spending. It looked across the board at not only domestic spending but defense spending. It looked on the revenue side. It also looked at some of our entitlement programs. The result from the 1993- 1994 action of the Democratic Congress was that by 2000, when President Bush was sworn in with a Republican Congress, there was a projected multitrillion-dollar surplus. We were looking at robust employment. I think it is sometimes difficult to listen to some of my colleagues talk about the deficit and President Obama when recognizing, under their leadership, President Bush and a Republican Congress, a surplus was turned into a huge deficit. In fact, President Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. It had taken almost more than 200 years to accumulate a debt he doubled. So we are here and prepared to make those reasonable and responsible decisions that will lead us forward to a balanced budget and, hopefully, to what we accomplished under Democratic leadership and President Clinton in the 1990s--hopefully--even some surpluses going forward. But it can't be done in 2 weeks. We can't undo what has taken place since 2000 in 2 weeks or 2 months. It is going to take a concerted, collaborative effort. One of the problems we have had, frankly, is that the goalpost has been continuously shifting in terms of Republican proposals. My recollection is that last year the Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee insisted on a cut of roughly $20 billion from the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011. Then, this year, the House Appropriations Committee, under Republican leadership, proposed initial cuts of $33 billion from the fiscal year 2010 level. Days later, the Republican leadership decided that was not enough, so then it became more than $60 billion, with cuts in everything from EPA water and sewer grants to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to Head Start--programs that are critical to working families and communities. Also, these investments are critical at a time when our economy is just beginning to regain some of the economic traction it had before. We are seeing some encouraging employment numbers. We are seeing some increase in consumer demand. This Draconian approach to cuts could very seriously undermine the emerging--not yet complete--but emerging recovery. In addition to the numbers that keep moving around, the proposal of the Republican House is studded with special interest riders--social policies, not fiscal policy. In fact, there is the impression sometimes that the deficit reduction claims are an excuse to try to advance not through the legislative process but through the appropriations process--through the threat of a shutdown--very conservative social policies. These policies should be debated. They should be voted upon. But to try to present them as nonnegotiable demands with the penalty for failure to heed to their demands the shutdown of the entire U.S. Government is, I think, inappropriate. The President and Leader Reid have been meeting with House Republican leadership continuously. There was a sense that a proposal of about $33 billion in cuts from the appropriate baseline could be accomplished, but then that seems to keep moving again. This is unlike 1995 when we saw the last shutdown of this government by a Republican Congress. Again, this is becoming almost ritualistic. A Republican House is elected, and then within months there is a shutdown of the government. The 1995 shutdown lasted about 26 days. It cost about $1.4 billion in essentially dead weight lost to the economy and to the government. We are on the verge of repeating that mistake. Back in 1995, we weren't engaged in two conflicts with American service men and women engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not participating in a very volatile NATO operation involving Libya. We had yet to see the threat of international terrorism unleashed so dramatically on our shores as it was on 9/11. Again, if this government is shut down, there are thousands of civilians and civilian contractors who are part of our intelligence services that are at least in limbo as to whether they can continue to provide us the information and the insights we need to protect ourselves against a still existing and now clearly obvious threat. These are much more challenging times. Indeed, for months now, in terms of a response to why the economy isn't growing, many of my colleagues have said, Well, it is the uncertainty of the Obama policies. That was the argument last year for the extension of the income tax cuts not only to middle-income Americans but to the wealthiest Americans. That uncertainty would breed a lack of investment, a lack of focus on job recovery. What could be more uncertain than shutting down the Government of the United States without any plan to bring it back and, indeed, without any clue as to what is the critical issue that must be addressed? At one point it is deficit; at another point it is social policy. That uncertainty I think could lead--I hope it does not--to a lack of confidence in our capacity to govern which will ripple through economic markets worldwide, and which also I think could challenge perception of the United States as a coherent world leader. There are some things that would unfortunately result from such a shutdown. We know military Federal pay will be delayed. In fact, uniformed military will be required to come to work, as they do, so dedicated to the service of this Nation, but their pay will cease the moment we shut this government down. Literally, there will be soldiers on the ground--sailors, marines, airmen in Iraq and Afghanistan-- fighting and they will not be paid and their families at home will not receive those benefits. The Federal Housing Administration will not be able to endorse any single-family mortgage loan. So if you are ready to close on your loan next week, you have the downpayment and you are ready to go, because the FHA will be out of business. SBA-guaranteed loans for business working capital, real estate investment or job creation--for those things that are trying to move the economy-- stopped, dead in their tracks. So if you are a small business man or woman, you are ready to expand your company and hire more people, sorry, the SBA is closed until further notice. The IRS cannot process tax refunds for those who are filing paper returns and are depending upon their tax refunds, as so many working families do, to get through the next several months. We didn't get here overnight. In 1993, Democrats saw these same problems: a deficit that was prolonged and gnawing at the economic fabric of this country. We took deliberate action. It took several years, but within those several years, by the end of President Clinton's administration we saw a surplus, a robust employment situation, and the future looked very good to working families. In 2001, as I indicated, President Bush came into office with a surplus, but after tax cuts that were unpaid for, two costly wars that were unpaid for, and an unpaid-for extension of our entitlement program in terms of Part D Medicare--the largest, by the way, expansion of government entitlements in many decades--we are now looking at a huge deficit. President Obama came into office at a time when unemployment was, in my State, reaching beyond 12, almost to 14 percent. He was, I think, required to take appropriate action. With the Recovery Act, we were able to begin to restore some of the jobs. We have seen over the last year growth in civilian jobs, the private sector workforce, that we didn't see under President Bush. In fact, recent reports suggest over 200,000 jobs. Those are the kinds of numbers that have to be sustained, not undercut, and you don't sustain them by shutting down the government and shutting down agencies such as SBA and the Federal Housing Administration. We are and have to work diligently. I hear my colleagues talking about reaching out, collaborating, and I hope that is the spirit we embraced in the last several hours. But we have heard many other statements coming, particularly from across the Capitol in the other Chamber, about how we have to shut this government down, how we have to go ahead and make a point, not make sound policy. That is not going to lead us to a better future for American families. I believe we have to be responsible. We have to recognize the problems before us will take months, if not years, to fully resolve, because it took years, not days or weeks, to accumulate. We have to respond to the troops in the field, not only to order them into battle but to support their families at home. We have to be responsible to families all across this country and give them a chance to use their talents to contribute to this country. I urge responsibility at this moment, not a shutdown of the U.S. Government.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, we are in the midst of another rapid increase in the price of oil and gas at the pump faced by our constituents. Rather than address this issue in a positive manner, we are once again debating an amendment whose authors believe that they have the expertise to determine that the EPA was wrong to conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants, despite the preponderance of scientific evidence. The McConnell amendment disregards the advice of leading scientists, doctors, and public health experts by not only overturning EPA's scientific endangerment finding but also telling EPA that it must continue to ignore what America's science experts are telling us about the dangerous impacts of carbon pollution. The Supreme Court concluded in 2007 that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gas emissions, rejecting the Bush administration's refusal to determine whether that pollution endangers Americans' health and welfare. The Senate should similarly reject this amendment, which would overturn that science- based decision. There are many far-reaching consequences of this amendment, but I want to focus my attention on how it will disrupt the broadly supported and partnership-driven fuel efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks, thereby forfeiting many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil savings, including savings for the American consumer, and potentially re-opening the debate to contentious litigation. This would be a major step backwards in our efforts to decrease the cost of fueling at the pump. The price of gas weighs heavily on the budgets of American families, currently $3.56 per gallon in Rhode Island and an increase of 27 percent over the same time last year. The cheapest gallon of gas is the one that you do not need to buy, which is why I have long championed improved fuel efficiency. Last year's vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will save consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of new vehicles. Increasing the standard to 60 mpg by 2025 could result in $7,000 in savings. Our competitors in China and Europe already have higher efficiency standards. It is time that we create manufacturing jobs here in America by producing cars that save consumers money at the pump. I have been heartened to see our auto industry begin to do just that, but we need to go further. The McConnell amendment would accomplish the opposite by creating business uncertainty for our existing standards and stopping the development of future efforts to save more oil and money. This amendment is part of the ongoing concern over how we will reduce carbon pollution, and there will always be the need to balance the needs for business development and environmental protection. But it does not have to be an either or position. A healthy environment is important for a strong economy, and the 40-year track record of the Clean Air Act has shown us that the two can work well in concert. We need to define our energy future, one that ends our dependence on foreign oil and confronts the challenges of climate change. This amendment accomplishes neither and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Durbin, and Tom Udall in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation continues the important work of my former colleague Senator Gordon Smith, who authored the original law, which was named for his 22-year old son, Garrett, who was a student at Utah Valley University when he took his own life. I want to once again recognize Gordon Smith for his work to champion suicide prevention and mental health initiatives. Currently, this law supports 35 States, 16 Tribes and Tribal organizations, and 38 colleges and universities in their efforts to prevent youth suicide. Indeed, with the help of these important programs, we have made real progress since the 2004 passage of this law in identifying at-risk youth and young adults, providing proven mental health and substance use disorder treatments, and educating the public about youth suicide prevention efforts. Unfortunately, suicide remains the third leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults age 10 to 24, and results in 4,400 lives lost each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 150,000 individuals in this age group annually receive medical care for self-inflicted injuries at Emergency Departments across the U.S. Suicide is particularly prevalent among college-age students as it is the second leading cause of death, resulting in approximately 1,100 deaths each year. The 2010 National Survey of Counseling Center Directors at colleges and universities found that 10.8 percent of students seek counseling each year, an increase of nearly 1 percent from 2009. At the same time, the average ratio of counselors to students has remained constant at one to 1,786. Many young people who commit suicide have a treatable mental illness, but they don't get the help they need. The legislation we introduced today provides critical resources for prevention and outreach programs to reach at risk youth before it is too late. It would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental health and wellness and reduce youth suicide. Additionally, I am particularly pleased that the bill would enable college counseling centers to have greater flexibility in their use of Federal resources. Counseling centers will continue to be able to apply for funds to operate suicide prevention hotlines and organize educational and awareness efforts about youth suicide prevention; however, with this bill they will also be able to use funds for the provision of counseling services to students and the hiring of appropriately trained personnel. These two components are integral to identifying and treating students who may be at risk with the goal of preventing suicide and attempted suicide on campuses. Our bipartisan legislation is supported by 43 coalition members of the Mental Health Liaison Group and the American Council on Education. Mr. President, I unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Durbin, and Tom Udall in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization. This legislation continues the important work of my former colleague Senator Gordon Smith, who authored the original law, which was named for his 22-year old son, Garrett, who was a student at Utah Valley University when he took his own life. I want to once again recognize Gordon Smith for his work to champion suicide prevention and mental health initiatives. Currently, this law supports 35 States, 16 Tribes and Tribal organizations, and 38 colleges and universities in their efforts to prevent youth suicide. Indeed, with the help of these important programs, we have made real progress since the 2004 passage of this law in identifying at-risk youth and young adults, providing proven mental health and substance use disorder treatments, and educating the public about youth suicide prevention efforts. Unfortunately, suicide remains the third leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults age 10 to 24, and results in 4,400 lives lost each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 150,000 individuals in this age group annually receive medical care for self-inflicted injuries at Emergency Departments across the U.S. Suicide is particularly prevalent among college-age students as it is the second leading cause of death, resulting in approximately 1,100 deaths each year. The 2010 National Survey of Counseling Center Directors at colleges and universities found that 10.8 percent of students seek counseling each year, an increase of nearly 1 percent from 2009. At the same time, the average ratio of counselors to students has remained constant at one to 1,786. Many young people who commit suicide have a treatable mental illness, but they don't get the help they need. The legislation we introduced today provides critical resources for prevention and outreach programs to reach at risk youth before it is too late. It would increase the authorized grant level to States, tribes, and college campuses for the implementation of proven programs and initiatives designed to address mental health and wellness and reduce youth suicide. Additionally, I am particularly pleased that the bill would enable college counseling centers to have greater flexibility in their use of Federal resources. Counseling centers will continue to be able to apply for funds to operate suicide prevention hotlines and organize educational and awareness efforts about youth suicide prevention; however, with this bill they will also be able to use funds for the provision of counseling services to students and the hiring of appropriately trained personnel. These two components are integral to identifying and treating students who may be at risk with the goal of preventing suicide and attempted suicide on campuses. Our bipartisan legislation is supported by 43 coalition members of the Mental Health Liaison Group and the American Council on Education. Mr. President, I unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, due to my flight from Rhode Island being delayed, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 47, the confirmation of Jimmie V. Reyna, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted to confirm this nomination.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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 Preserving Homes and Communities Act. I introduced an earlier version of this legislation in 2009. I am pleased to again be joined by Senators Durbin, Leahy, Merkley, Whitehouse, and Franken as cosponsors of this bill. The sheer number of foreclosures across the country is startling. Since the beginning of 2009, there have been approximately 5 million foreclosures, and the Center for Responsible Lending estimates there will be a total of 9 million foreclosures between 2009 and 2012. In my home state of Rhode Island, the numbers are similarly shocking because 1 in every 10 mortgaged homeowners is in foreclosure or seriously delinquent on their mortgage payment. Rhode Island families have felt the effects of the recession and the national housing crisis harder than most, which is why I worked with the Obama Administration and led the effort to expand the Hardest Hit Fund to include Rhode Island. This program is just getting underway, and my hope is that it will provide much needed targeted assistance to struggling homeowners and expand the number of loss mitigation tools in order to prevent more Rhode Islanders from falling into foreclosure. Unfortunately, additional efforts are needed because the foreclosure crisis has grown in complexity as a result of the revelations last fall pointing to poorly handled, if not illegal, foreclosure processing. Cutting these corners at the risk of severe legal consequences raises serious questions about not only the value of mortgage related investments, but also the loan modification efforts of servicers. I will persist in my efforts to fight improper foreclosures and to bring Rhode Islanders the relief they deserve, and this commitment continues today with the introduction of the Preserving Homes and Communities Act. This bill has been updated and enhanced from its predecessor in the last Congress to reflect the fact that some provisions have been enacted into law and to address emerging issues that are standing in the way of saving as many homes as possible. Most importantly, this bill, like the one I introduced in 2009, eliminates the so called ``dual-track'' in which a homeowner is evaluated for a home loan modification while simultaneously being foreclosed upon. The prospect of losing one's home is daunting enough, and unfortunately, too many troubled homeowners have received a modification notice one day followed by a foreclosure notice the next day. This is just too confusing and injects additional uncertainty at the most unnerving time for a troubled homeowner. Simply put, there should be no dual track. There should be one track, and while a troubled homeowner is being evaluated for a loan modification, they should have the comfort of knowing that foreclosure proceedings will not be initiated. This bill establishes this single track. Second, in light of the repeated difficulties that troubled homeowners have faced in contacting and remaining in touch with their servicers, this bill continues to provide a means for more State and local governments to establish mediation programs. These programs provide a process by which a neutral third party presides over discussions between homeowners and servicers to review and discuss alternatives to foreclosure. Third, with this bill, I continue my efforts to fund the National Housing Trust Fund, which would enable the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing through the proceeds received from the warrant provisions I crafted for the financial rescue package in 2008. These warrant provisions ensured that as banking institutions recovered from their near collapse, American taxpayers, who bankrolled their recovery, would also benefit from the upside. To date, more than $8 billion in warrant proceeds have been recouped by taxpayers. As I have stated before, my view is that some of these returns from providing a firmer foundation for our financial institutions would be put to good use by providing a firmer foundation for affordable rental housing in our country by finally funding the National Housing Trust Fund. This bill also has several new provisions. First, in response to repeated concerns that the loan modification process has been lacking in transparency, this bill creates a dispute resolution mechanism within the loan modification process itself. Under this bill, troubled homeowners and servicers may work out their disagreements with a neutral third party on a fair playing field with all the information required to evaluate whether a home loan modification application was properly evaluated. Second, this legislation addresses the recent robo-signing allegations by requiring servicers, if a home loan modification is denied, to prove that they actually have the legal right to foreclose. Third, this bill responds to difficulties faced by individuals who, for example, have come to own and live in a mortgaged home through the death of a loved one. These unfortunate life events are tough enough. As long as these individuals live in these homes as their primary residences and are having difficulties paying their mortgages due to financial hardship, they too would have to be evaluated for a loan modification before banks could foreclose under my legislation. Fourth, this bill adds another provision to the section placing reasonable limits on foreclosure fees and costly markups by prohibiting abusive fees charged in response to lapsed home insurance policies. Under this bill, when a home insurance policy lapses, the servicer may only charge a fee in an amount equal to the cost of continuing or re- establishing the home insurance policy. No more, and no less. Lastly, I think it's important to make one final point about this bill. It provides the means for servicers to legitimately evaluate struggling homeowners for loan modifications, but it does not require servicers to work with homeowners who have clearly abandoned their homes, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This bill is narrowly and responsibly tailored to prevent foreclosures that can be avoided and to ensure that all finalized foreclosures are properly and objectively processed. In short, this legislation is fair. The foreclosure crisis has persisted for far too long, and it is time to finally address this issue once and for all. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act provides a path to stabilizing the housing sector as a means of bolstering and sustaining our economic recovery. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senators Durbin, Leahy, Merkley, Whitehouse, and Franken in supporting this bill and taking the legislative steps necessary to address foreclosures. 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 Preserving Homes and Communities Act. I introduced an earlier version of this legislation in 2009. I am pleased to again be joined by Senators Durbin, Leahy, Merkley, Whitehouse, and Franken as cosponsors of this bill. The sheer number of foreclosures across the country is startling. Since the beginning of 2009, there have been approximately 5 million foreclosures, and the Center for Responsible Lending estimates there will be a total of 9 million foreclosures between 2009 and 2012. In my home state of Rhode Island, the numbers are similarly shocking because 1 in every 10 mortgaged homeowners is in foreclosure or seriously delinquent on their mortgage payment. Rhode Island families have felt the effects of the recession and the national housing crisis harder than most, which is why I worked with the Obama Administration and led the effort to expand the Hardest Hit Fund to include Rhode Island. This program is just getting underway, and my hope is that it will provide much needed targeted assistance to struggling homeowners and expand the number of loss mitigation tools in order to prevent more Rhode Islanders from falling into foreclosure. Unfortunately, additional efforts are needed because the foreclosure crisis has grown in complexity as a result of the revelations last fall pointing to poorly handled, if not illegal, foreclosure processing. Cutting these corners at the risk of severe legal consequences raises serious questions about not only the value of mortgage related investments, but also the loan modification efforts of servicers. I will persist in my efforts to fight improper foreclosures and to bring Rhode Islanders the relief they deserve, and this commitment continues today with the introduction of the Preserving Homes and Communities Act. This bill has been updated and enhanced from its predecessor in the last Congress to reflect the fact that some provisions have been enacted into law and to address emerging issues that are standing in the way of saving as many homes as possible. Most importantly, this bill, like the one I introduced in 2009, eliminates the so called ``dual-track'' in which a homeowner is evaluated for a home loan modification while simultaneously being foreclosed upon. The prospect of losing one's home is daunting enough, and unfortunately, too many troubled homeowners have received a modification notice one day followed by a foreclosure notice the next day. This is just too confusing and injects additional uncertainty at the most unnerving time for a troubled homeowner. Simply put, there should be no dual track. There should be one track, and while a troubled homeowner is being evaluated for a loan modification, they should have the comfort of knowing that foreclosure proceedings will not be initiated. This bill establishes this single track. Second, in light of the repeated difficulties that troubled homeowners have faced in contacting and remaining in touch with their servicers, this bill continues to provide a means for more State and local governments to establish mediation programs. These programs provide a process by which a neutral third party presides over discussions between homeowners and servicers to review and discuss alternatives to foreclosure. Third, with this bill, I continue my efforts to fund the National Housing Trust Fund, which would enable the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing through the proceeds received from the warrant provisions I crafted for the financial rescue package in 2008. These warrant provisions ensured that as banking institutions recovered from their near collapse, American taxpayers, who bankrolled their recovery, would also benefit from the upside. To date, more than $8 billion in warrant proceeds have been recouped by taxpayers. As I have stated before, my view is that some of these returns from providing a firmer foundation for our financial institutions would be put to good use by providing a firmer foundation for affordable rental housing in our country by finally funding the National Housing Trust Fund. This bill also has several new provisions. First, in response to repeated concerns that the loan modification process has been lacking in transparency, this bill creates a dispute resolution mechanism within the loan modification process itself. Under this bill, troubled homeowners and servicers may work out their disagreements with a neutral third party on a fair playing field with all the information required to evaluate whether a home loan modification application was properly evaluated. Second, this legislation addresses the recent robo-signing allegations by requiring servicers, if a home loan modification is denied, to prove that they actually have the legal right to foreclose. Third, this bill responds to difficulties faced by individuals who, for example, have come to own and live in a mortgaged home through the death of a loved one. These unfortunate life events are tough enough. As long as these individuals live in these homes as their primary residences and are having difficulties paying their mortgages due to financial hardship, they too would have to be evaluated for a loan modification before banks could foreclose under my legislation. Fourth, this bill adds another provision to the section placing reasonable limits on foreclosure fees and costly markups by prohibiting abusive fees charged in response to lapsed home insurance policies. Under this bill, when a home insurance policy lapses, the servicer may only charge a fee in an amount equal to the cost of continuing or re- establishing the home insurance policy. No more, and no less. Lastly, I think it's important to make one final point about this bill. It provides the means for servicers to legitimately evaluate struggling homeowners for loan modifications, but it does not require servicers to work with homeowners who have clearly abandoned their homes, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This bill is narrowly and responsibly tailored to prevent foreclosures that can be avoided and to ensure that all finalized foreclosures are properly and objectively processed. In short, this legislation is fair. The foreclosure crisis has persisted for far too long, and it is time to finally address this issue once and for all. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act provides a path to stabilizing the housing sector as a means of bolstering and sustaining our economic recovery. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senators Durbin, Leahy, Merkley, Whitehouse, and Franken in supporting this bill and taking the legislative steps necessary to address foreclosures. 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 colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act. I thank Senators Begich, Blumenthal, Collins, Kerry, Lautenberg, Sanders, Stabenow, and Whitehouse for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality non- profit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. Since fiscal year 2000, Federal funding for Reach Out and Read through the Department of Education has been an essential piece of a successful public-private partnership that has been matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments. This funding has supported the training of nearly 50,000 health care providers in literacy promotion, and the operation of programs in more than 4,100 clinics and hospitals nationwide, including the 40 sites that operate in Rhode Island. The Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization for this successful partnership activity. The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe a Book 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 colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act. I thank Senators Begich, Blumenthal, Collins, Kerry, Lautenberg, Sanders, Stabenow, and Whitehouse for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality non- profit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading. Since fiscal year 2000, Federal funding for Reach Out and Read through the Department of Education has been an essential piece of a successful public-private partnership that has been matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments. This funding has supported the training of nearly 50,000 health care providers in literacy promotion, and the operation of programs in more than 4,100 clinics and hospitals nationwide, including the 40 sites that operate in Rhode Island. The Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization for this successful partnership activity. The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe a Book 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 pay tribute to an outstanding Rhode Islander, a Vietnam veteran, and champion of workers' rights and justice in the workplace who retired after 35 years of service--my friend, Stan Israel. After serving two tours in Vietnam, Stan began working for the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, in 1974, first as an organizer with Local 1199, covering New York and Long Island. Stan represented health employees in hospitals and nursing homes organizing employees around workplace safety and fair wages. Then, in 1983, after a short stay in neighboring Connecticut, Stan moved to Rhode Island to head the New England District of SEIU, where he recently retired as executive director. For nearly three decades, Stan led Rhode Island's second largest union, which represents hard-working health care employees at hospitals across my State and hundreds of nursing and community health centers as well. Stan is a man of principle, good judgment, and great character. Moreover, he has been an unmatched advocate for the social and economic concerns of those in greatest need. Indeed, Stan's focus and dedication has always been geared towards improving patient care in our hospitals and nursing homes and preserving the collective voice of workers' rights. He demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to workers and their families, which extended to their safety and health on and off the job. Over the years, Stan organized the labor management committees at our hospitals to educate and train health care employees and worked to secure funding for training and professional growth programs. Moreover, Stan helped craft the Rhode Island Safe Patient Handling Act, a State law that has helped reduce the number of injuries suffered by patients and caretakers in health care facilities. And, after many years of Stan's efforts and activism, another bill was signed into Rhode Island law preventing hospitals from forcing mandatory overtime for nurses and nurse's aides, except in the case of emergencies. But these are only a handful of Stan's achievements. And while these accomplishments came with great sacrifice and setbacks, Stan never quit and never stopped fighting to elevate the dignity and value of workers. Stan's career represents a lifetime of distinguished service to his country, his State, and above all his members. Now, after a well-deserved retirement, congratulations and thank you. I wish you and your wife, Cynthia, your children, Caitlin and John, the very best in all your future endeavors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to make a few observations about the continuing resolution and the appropriations process this year. First, I want to commend Chairman Inouye for his leadership and efforts to accommodate the views and input of all senators in crafting the omnibus appropriations bill. He went a long way to meet the demands of the minority leader and other senators to include a $29 billion cut from the budget level requested by the President. Indeed, I was deeply disappointed that the proposed omnibus would have eliminated the Leveraging Educational Assistance Program, LEAP. For more than a decade, I worked with states, educators, and others to reauthorize and fund this program, which uses Federal resources to leverage additional state aid to help low income students attend college. As much as I was dissatisfied by this outcome, I was prepared to vote for this bill because it is far superior to the inefficiencies and consequences of a continuing resolution. I am disappointed that such a significant compromise was blocked by the other side of the aisle. Instead, we are being forced to adopt a short-term continuing resolution, CR, through March 4, 2011. With few exceptions, the CR provides no direction from Congress on how funds can be used, while at the same time failing to make critical adjustments and investments for certain programs and agencies. Critics of the omnibus appropriations bill should understand that unlike the thoughtful, lengthy, and open appropriations process that produced the omnibus, this CR was put together quickly without the input of most senators. As a result, it is hardly a thoughtful instrument for funding the government. I am particularly concerned about the impact the CR will have on the capabilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide robust oversight of financial markets. Fair and orderly markets are critical to restoring confidence in the American economy. Despite considerable increases in the number of firms it is required to oversee and tremendous growth in the size and complexity of the securities markets and products it regulates, the SEC's workforce and technology investments are only now returning to the levels of five years ago. Under the CR, the SEC will be funded at the fiscal year 2010 rate, which is nearly $200 million less than what was included during bipartisan negotiations on the omnibus. Without the omnibus's funding level, the SEC will have to halt several technology projects and forgo replacement of departing staff. Shortchanging the SEC will also make it extraordinarily difficult to fulfill new statutory requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The SEC has been tasked with helping establish an effective regulatory system for the previously unseen and largely unregulated over-the-counter derivatives market and the hedge fund markets. It has new responsibilities over credit rating agencies, including annual exams. We should not make the past mistake of underfunding the SEC. This agency is critical to restoring the confidence of retirees and investors in the United States capital markets, so that they will again invest in American companies, helping inject new life into our economy. We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Continuing to starve the SEC of the funds it needs to police markets will ultimately make it more likely to see a major fraud. Any incremental savings will be cold comfort for the losses incurred by taxpayers and investors. Likewise, I believe we need to fully fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At a hearing that Senator Levin and I held on December 8, 2010, Chairman Gensler informed us that his agency is going to be woefully short of resources. The continuing resolution for the CFTC will leave them about $116 million short of the funding level included in the omnibus. I hope that we will have chance to address these critical shortfalls in the next funding vehicle to come before the Senate. While it is true that overall the 36-page CR did not provide sufficient direction and oversight, it is important to acknowledge that the CR does make a few adjustments--some that are essential and others which I believe deserved greater consideration. I want to applaud the addition of language in the CR that requires the Department of Health and Human Services to obligate the same amount of funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program as it did during the same period last year. This will make a total of $3.95 billion available to low-income families and individuals during the cold winter months. I hope that in the final appropriations bill we will meet the bipartisan request of 44 Senators to fully fund this program at the $5.1 billion level for the entirety of fiscal year 2011. I am also pleased that the CR addresses funding for the Pell grant. According to recent estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, students would have faced a reduction of as much as $1,840 from the maximum grant. The CR will address the shortfall and ensure that we can maintain the Pell grant maximum at $5,550. Despite the economic hardships families are facing, they continue to prioritize education. They know that it is the foundation for our economic recovery and future prosperity. We must keep our end of the bargain by maintaining our commitment to the Pell grant. I am, however, concerned that the CR includes a provision to codify a misguided Bush-era regulation that undermines our central goal of ensuring that students in high poverty schools are taught by highly qualified teachers and that parents know the qualifications of their children's teachers. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002, a highly qualified teacher must have obtained full state certification, which may include certification obtained through alternative routes. The Bush administration published regulations allowing that a teacher who is merely enrolled in or making progress toward state certification to be deemed highly qualified. Parents in California have challenged the regulation in the courts and have won a favorable decision on appeal. Quite simply, they want to know whether their children's teachers are fully certified or just in the process of becoming certified. This provision prevents them from knowing that. I am also deeply disappointed that this CR does not contain important language that would have allowed the Department of Defense to reprogram funds for new starts, increases in production, or other realignments. This provision would have given the Department further flexibility to ensure critical defense programs stay on schedule and on cost. This is especially important for the Navy's ship construction programs-- programs that the Navy supports, were authorized by the Defense Authorization Act, and employ thousands of Rhode Islanders. Without this provision, the Navy, and all of the services, will be further limited and constrained to execute programs within the funding levels set last year. I have described some of the pitfalls with this CR. It is a crude instrument that has many shortcomings. Regrettably, the decision by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to walk away from the omnibus placed the continued operation of government agencies from the Pentagon to the FBI to the FDA to the Treasury at risk. Adopting the CR, notwithstanding its significant flaws, is the only responsible option available. In the coming months, it is my hope that we can craft a full year funding measure that corrects the serious issues the CR has created and failed to address.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd, Durbin, and Tom Udall in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Reauthorization Act. This bill, which is dedicated to the son of our former colleague Senator Gordon Smith, would bolster the ability of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration to help prevent suicide among our nation's youth. My efforts during the original enactment of this law, and now this reauthorization, have been focused on enhancing suicide prevention programs on college campuses. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college-age students in the United States, with some 1,100 deaths by suicide occurring in this age group each year. Indeed, we can and must do more to curb this trend. The reauthorization bill we are introducing today would expand existing federally-funded efforts on campuses beyond outreach, education, and awareness about suicide and suicide prevention to include funding for services and the hiring of appropriately trained personnel. These provisions stem from a bill that I introduced in the 108th Congress, the Campus Care and Counseling Act, and I am pleased that they are included in the reauthorization efforts of this law. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and I look forward to continuing efforts with my colleagues to move this bill in the 112th Congress.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as the New START treaty, which was signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010, and would replace the START treaty that expired on December 5, 2009. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to review the implications of this treaty over the course of five hearings and multiple briefings. I am convinced that ratification of this treaty is essential to the security of the United States, and not simply in the context of our relationship with Russia but also in our efforts to counter nuclear proliferation throughout the world. As a starting point to consider this treaty, it is important to recognize that since December 5, 2009, when the START treaty expired, we have not had inspectors on the ground in Russia to monitor their nuclear weapons complex. It wasn't until December 2008 that the Bush administration and Russia agreed they wanted to replace START before it expired but acknowledged that the task would have to be left to the Obama administration, leaving them 1 year before the treaty was set to expire so they could begin these negotiations. The reality is that we have not had a verification regime in place or inspectors on the ground in Russia for over a year, and every day that goes by without this treaty in place is another day that the United States lacks the ability to verify effectively and inspect Russia's strategic nuclear forces. If the Senate rejects this treaty, it may be many years, if ever, before we once again have American inspectors on the ground in Russia. President Obama stated: In the absence of START, without the New START treaty being ratified by the Senate, we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the Russians are doing . . . . And when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. The bottom line is this: If you don't trust the Russians, then you should be voting for this treaty because that is the only way we are going to get, in a timely, effective way, American inspectors back on the ground looking at their nuclear complex. There is another aspect. Without the New START treaty in place, there is additional strain on our intelligence network to monitor Russia's activities. In his testimony to the Armed Services Committee, GEN Kevin Chilton, commander of STRATCOM, stated: Without New START, we would rapidly lose some of our insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities . . . we would be required increasingly to focus low-density/high-demand intelligence collection and analysis assets on Russian nuclear forces. These intelligence assets include our satellites, which are already in high demand, particularly in our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in emerging threat locations such as Yemen, Somalia, and the Pacific. Furthermore, these national technical means can never supplant the quality of intelligence gathered from onsite inspections by American weapons experts in verifying the quantity, type, and location of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Dr. James Miller, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, remarked: Onsite inspectors are a vital complement to the data that the United States will receive under New START. They provide the boots-on-the-ground presence to confirm the validity of Russian data declarations and to add to our confidence and knowledge regarding Russian strategic forces located at facilities around the country. The failure to ratify may present a significant operational cost to our efforts in the war on terrorism. To compensate for the lack of a treaty, our satellite assets could be shifted to maintain some coverage of Russia, which, in the short run, would deny the capability of looking at other places, such as Sudan or Yemen, where we know al-Qaida and its affiliates are establishing sanctuaries. In the longer term, we may consider putting up new satellites--a tremendous cost that would be difficult to bear in a continuing budget crisis and one that would not give us the same kind of information as having inspectors on the ground. Let me emphasize this again. If this treaty goes unratified, if we don't have inspectors on the ground, then we must rely on our national technical means of verification, which is significantly satellites. Those are, as General Chilton said, high-demand assets. If they are being flown over Russia, I cannot conceive, if we let this treaty elapse over several years, that military commanders will feel confident in not putting more and more satellites over Russia. That takes away from efforts right now to monitor troubled spots around the globe, and it is a real cost to the failure to ratify this treaty. Ratifying this treaty is also a vital part of our relationship with Russia. It is the essential element in the process of controlling nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia. I wish to quote my esteemed colleague and manager on the other side, Senator Lugar, who has long been not only a leader in this effort but someone whose vision and actions already--particularly through his work with Senator Sam Nunn--have made this world a much safer place and one whose debt we are all in nationally. I thank him for that. Senator Lugar stated: We should not be cavalier about allowing our relationship with Moscow to drift or about letting our knowledge of Russian weaponry atrophy. He is right, as he has been on so many issues with respect to national and international policy. This process has had a long history of bipartisan support--from the first formal agreements with the Soviet Union under the Carter administration that limited nuclear offensive and defensive weapons, through both terms of President Reagan's administration, which produced the original START treaty, to the overwhelming support of the Senate to ratify these important agreements. All of these agreements had strong, bipartisan support. This treaty is an important part of renewing our relationship with Russia and will provide the foundation for future negotiations on other nuclear issues. Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated: It's my calculation that we need to get this done now because every day that we don't is a day that not only don't we have boots on the ground, but it's also a day that we can't move on to other parts of the agenda. This was the New START Treaty, but it was also the start of the reset of the relationship, and it is a very big agenda. We have other issues to consider, such as tactical nuclear devices, which the Russians may have and former countries of the Soviet Union may have. We have a whole set of issues. We have issues with respect to Iran and North Korea. If we can ratify this treaty, we now have momentum to move forward on these other issues. We all know the proliferation of nuclear weapons threatens more than the security of just Russia and the United States. Indeed, this treaty is central to the continuing need for a worldwide effort to control nuclear weapons. It is every President's worst nightmare that somewhere in the world a nuclear accident will occur, that a rogue state will attain nuclear capability or a nuclear weapon or materials will fall into the hands of a terrorist group. This treaty is an important step toward reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world and demonstrates to the international community that the United States and Russia are committed to this goal. If we don't ratify this agreement and don't continue this 40-year process of working with Russia on limiting nuclear weapons, how can we get them to assist us effectively in addressing the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran? What credibility will we have among the international community to restrain Iran's development of nuclear weapons if it is perceived that we have abandoned our longlasting, long-term, and mutually beneficial attempts with the Russians to limit our nuclear weapons? We must do everything possible to counter proliferation through protection, containment, interdiction, and a host of different programs. I again quote Senator Lugar: This process must continue if we are to answer the existential threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Every missile destroyed, every warhead deactivated, and every inspection implemented makes us safer. Russia and the United States have a choice whether to continue this effort, and that choice is embodied in the New START treaty. We also understand, too, that as long as we have nuclear weapons, we have to have an effective nuclear arsenal. In its fiscal year 2011 budget, the Obama administration requested $7 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration--NNSA--which overseas the U.S. nuclear complex. This request is about 10 percent more than the previous year's budget. That is a significant increase for any department in this government, particularly as we face challenging economic times and an increased deficit. Indeed, Linton Brooks, the former NNSA Administrator under President George W. Bush, said: ``I'd have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention in the administration.'' So the issue of dealing with our nuclear arsenal is being addressed with more energy and more resources and more attention than it was in the preceding administration, and I don't think that argument can be used as an attempt to delay the ratification of this treaty. Many have argued that before we consider this treaty, we must commit to substantial funding increases in the future budgets to modernize the nuclear infrastructure. We are doing that. While I support the need to ensure a safer, more reliable nuclear arsenal--and I applaud the Obama administration's efforts to commit significant resources to do so--we have to recognize this is a recent change. In fact, the Obama administration is not only bringing this treaty to the Senate, it also is bringing to the Congress a level of commitment that was lacking previously. I think both of those are necessary, both of those mutually reinforce one another and, together, are strong support for the ratification of this treaty. During an Armed Services Committee hearing in July, I asked Directors of the national labs about the significant commitment of resources this administration has made to the nuclear enterprise. Dr. George Miller, the Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, responded: It is clearly a major step in the right direction. The budget has been declining since about 2005 . . . and this represents a very important and very significant turnaround. The Obama administration has also outlined an $85 billion, 10-year plan for NNSA's nuclear weapons activities, which includes an additional $4.1 billion in spending for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The $85 billion represents a 21-percent rise above the fiscal year 2011 spending level. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in his preface to the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review: These investments, and the NPR's strategy for warhead life extension, represent a credible modernization plan necessary to sustain the nuclear infrastructure and support our Nation's deterrent. Ratifying this treaty presents us with the opportunity to recommit ourselves to preserving and reinvesting in our nuclear enterprise, including the highly trained workforce, which is so necessary. But again, ratifying this treaty is such an essential part of our national security that it both complements and, in some cases, transcends simply reinvesting in our modernization efforts. But we are doing that, and that should give comfort, I think, to those who see that as an issue, which may--and I don't think so--present some inhibition in ratifying this treaty. In all the discussions we have had on the content of this treaty, we have often failed to note the caliber and professionalism of the American negotiators who have worked tirelessly on this treaty. This elite cadre of experts have devoted their lives to serving our Nation in promoting nuclear arms control and doing it from very wise, very experienced, and I think very critical notions of what is necessary to protect the United States because that is their first and foremost responsibility. This impressive team consisted of State Department negotiators, representatives from the Department of Defense's Joint Staff, and from STRATCOM, our military command that is responsible for all these nuclear devices. Most of them took part in the development of START I and the subsequent treaties. They have had the experience of years and years of dealing with the Russians, of understanding the strengths and the weaknesses of our approaches. They captured the lessons learned on what we need to know about the Russian nuclear enterprise and the best means of achieving our national strategic objectives. This was not the labor of amateurs, this was the work of people who have devoted their lifetime to try to develop an effective nuclear regime involving inspections and verification, and they know more about what the Russians do and vice versa than anyone else. They were at the heart of these negotiations. Many of the principles behind these treaties are, as a result, complex and nuanced. Most Americans, frankly--and, indeed, many of our colleagues--don't have the means to invest the time to become versed in the technical aspect of launchers, telemetry, and verification regimes. These individuals have spent their lives doing that. We are quite fortunate they have committed themselves to this enterprise and that they have produced this treaty. Furthermore, former Secretaries of State and Defense from both Republican and Democratic administrations and military commanders, including seven previous commanders of STRATCOM these are the military officers whose professional lives have been devoted to protecting America and commanding every unit that has a nuclear capability--have all urged us to support this START treaty. That is a very, I think, strong endorsement as to the effectiveness of this treaty and the need for this treaty. All of them understand this is in our best national security interest. Again, all the commanders, all the individuals who have spent every waking hour and, indeed, probably sleepless nights, thinking about their responsibilities for nuclear weapons and their use, consider this treaty essential. That, I think, should be strong evidence for its ratification. As I mentioned before, the New START treaty builds upon decades of diplomacy and agreements between the United States and Russia. The New START treaty is appropriately structured to address the present conditions of our nuclear enterprise and national security interests, while building on the lessons we have learned from decades of previous treaty negotiations, from decades of implementing past treaties, of finding out what works on the ground, and setting nonproliferation goals for the future. It is important to understand how we got to this point today. The United States and the Soviet Union signed their first formal agreements limiting nuclear offensive and defensive weapons in May 1972. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks--known as SALT--produced two agreements--the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. In 1979, these agreements were followed by the signing of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty-- known as SALT II--which sought to codify equal limits on U.S. and Soviet strategic offensive nuclear forces. However, President Carter eventually withdrew this treaty from Senate consideration due to the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan. Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan administration participated in negotiations on the development of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces--INF--Treaty, which was ultimately signed in 1988. At the negotiations, the Reagan administration called for a ``double zero'' option, which would eliminate all short- as well as long-range INF systems, a position that, at the time, was viewed by most observers as unattractive to the Soviets. President Reagan also worked extensively to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, which led to the signing by President George Herbert Walker Bush of the initial START treaty in 1991. Again, the work of President Reagan, and the work of President George Herbert Walker Bush all led to the historic START I treaty. It limited long-range nuclear forces--land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles--ICBMs submarine-launched ballistic missiles--SLBMs and heavy bombers. START also contained a complex verification regime. Both sides collected most of the information needed to verify compliance with their own satellites and remote sensing equipment--known as the national technical means of verification. But the parties also used data exchanges, notifications, and onsite inspections to gather information about forces and activities limited by the treaty. Taken together, these measures were designed to provide each nation with the ability to deter and detect militarily significant violations. The verification regime and the cooperation needed to implement many of these measures instilled confidence and encouraged openness among the signatories. The original START treaty was ratified by the Senate in October 1992 by a vote of 93 to 6. We are building literally on the pathbreaking work of President Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush in limiting these classes of systems, using a national means of technology, and putting inspectors on the ground. I find it ironic that we might be at the stage of turning our back on all that work, of walking away from a bipartisan consensus--93 to 6. I don't think that would be in the best interest of this country. In January 1993, the United States and Russia signed START II, which would further limit warheads. After some delay, the treaty eventually received approval by the Senate in January 1996, but it never entered into force, mainly because of the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in June 2002. But, once again, there was another effort along these same lines to limit the numbers of launchers and warheads, and in that same spirit today we have this New START treaty before us. During a summit meeting with President Putin in November 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would reduce its operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads during the decade. He stated the United States would reduce its forces unilaterally without signing a formal agreement. However, President Putin indicated Russia wanted to use a formal arms control process, emphasizing the two sides should focus on ``reaching a reliable and verifiable agreement'' and a ``legally binding document.'' Yet the Bush administration wanted to maintain the flexibility to size and structure its nuclear forces in response to its own needs and preferred a less formal process. The United States and Russia ultimately did sign the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, on May 24, 2002. The Senate ratified the treaty on March 6, 2003, by a vote of 95 to 0; and the Russian Duma approved the treaty also. Once again, a high-level arms treaty negotiated by President George W. Bush with the Russians came to this floor and was unanimously approved. In mid-2006, the United States and Russia began to discuss their options for arms control after START. However, the two countries were unable to agree on a path forward. Neither side wanted to extend START in its original form. Russia wanted to replace START with a new treaty that would further reduce deployed forces while using many of the same definitions and counting rules in START. The Bush administration initially did not want to negotiate a new treaty but would have been willing to extend some of the START monitoring provisions. President Bush and President Putin agreed at the Sochi summit in April 2008 they would proceed with negotiating a new, legally binding treaty. As I mentioned before, it wasn't until December 2008 that the two sides agreed to replace START before it expired but acknowledged this task would fall to the Obama administration. This administration took that work seriously and diligently and produced a treaty and now it is not only our opportunity but I think our obligation to ratify the treaty. Some of my colleagues have already described measures in the New START treaty. Let me suggest some of the important details. Under the New START treaty, the United States and Russia must reduce the number of their strategic arms within 7 years from the date the treaty enters into force. This treaty sets a limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. All warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward the limit. This limit is 74 percent lower than the limit of the 1991 START treaty. Again, let me stop and say, I think if you asked every American the question: Would we be safer with fewer nuclear warheads in the strategic forces of Russia and the United States, the answer would be yes. I think people all recognize the potential danger of the existence of more than enough nuclear weapons to wreak havoc if they were somehow launched. The New START treaty also sets a limit of 800 deployed and nondeployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers--which are warheads but also launching systems--puts separate limits on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers. The limit, again, is less than half the limit established by the 1991 START treaty for deployed delivery vehicles. The sooner we ratify this treaty, the sooner these limitations will be in place and can be enforced. We are at a point, I think, where we can continue the progress that began--the breakthrough, really, that began with President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and, to a degree at least in spirit, carried on with the Moscow Treaty by President George W. Bush, and now can be ratified with legally binding terms in this New START treaty. Once ratified, the new START treaty will be in force for 10 years unless superseded by a subsequent agreement, and of course the United States and Russia have the option to extend the treaty for a period of no more than 5 years and there are withdrawal clauses if we believe our national security requires such a withdrawal. Furthermore, the 2002 Moscow Treaty will terminate with the adoption of this START treaty. Like the first START treaty, the New START treaty establishes a complex verification and transparency regime that will guard against cheating and will enable the United States to monitor Russia's compliance with the treaty's terms. The treaty's verification measures build on the lessons learned during the 15 years of implementing the 1991 START treaty and adds new elements tailored to the limitations of this treaty and to the application of this treaty. Indeed, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, the head of the U.S. negotiating delegation, stated, ``Much was learned over the 15 years in which the START treaty verification regime was implemented, and the United States and Russia sought to take advantage of that knowledge in formulating the verification regime for the new treaty-- seeking to maintain elements which proved useful, to include new measures where necessary, improve those measures that were an unnecessary drag on our strategic forces, and eliminate those that were not essential for verifying the obligations of the New START treaty.'' These verification measures include onsite inspections--which we do not have at the moment--data exchanges--which we do not have at the moment--and notifications as well as provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry information. Under the terms of the treaty, the parties are required to exchange data on the numbers, locations, and technical characteristics of deployed and nondeployed strategic arms that are subject to the treaty. The parties also agreed to assign and exchange unique identification numbers for each deployed and nondeployed ICBM, SLBM, and nuclear- capable heavy bomber. We literally now will have the serial numbers with which we can monitor their systems. The treaty also establishes a notification regime to track the movement and changes in status of strategic arms. Through these notifications and the unique identification numbers, the United States will be better able to monitor the status of Russian arms throughout their life cycle. The New START treaty will also allow each nation up to 18 onsite inspections each year. These inspections will include deployed and nondeployed systems at operating bases, as well as nondeployed systems at storage sites, test ranges, and conversion/elimination facilities. These onsite inspections will help verify and confirm the information provided in the data exchanges and notifications, ensuring that Russia is staying within the numbers of the treaty. Some have asked why have a treaty if Russia is allowed to cheat? It is important to remind ourselves of several points. First, because of its commitment under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Russia has already been operating under tighter constraints than the United States. They are signatories to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In 1996, President Clinton and President Yeltsin signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Russian Duma approved the treaty in 2000, but we have yet to ratify the treaty, so Russia, indeed, is operating under more constraints with respect to comprehensive testing than we are. Second, over a year has passed since the expiration of the original START treaty. Again, since that time there have been no verifications, no inspections, no process in place to work with Russia. It seems ironic to me that people who are worrying about signing a treaty and having the Russians cheat are not preoccupied with what the Russians are doing today, since we can't verify. It does not seem to me to make sense to say the way you can eliminate the treaty is eliminate the laws so they cannot cheat. Again, I think the logic as well as the history as well as the details of this treaty are so compelling and persuasive that we have to ratify this treaty. Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated also: The urgency to verify the treaty is because we currently lack verification measures with Russia. The longer that goes on, the more opportunity there is for misunderstanding and mistrust. There is a letter to Senator Kerry addressing concerns about cheating from Secretary Gates. Let me at this point commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. No one knows more about the details of this treaty, the ramifications, the nuances than Senator Kerry. No one has been more articulate, no one has talked with more wisdom, more experience, and more compelling logic than the Senator from Massachusetts when it comes to ratification of this treaty. For his leadership, I thank him. Thank you, Senator. But Secretary Gates wrote to Senator Kerry to remind him that: [T]he survivable and flexible U.S. strategic posture planned for New START will help deter any future Russian leaders from cheating or breakout from the treaty, should they ever have such an inclination. Finally, ratifying the New START treaty will actually provide the right incentive structure to prevent cheating rather than to encourage it. Let me conclude. Let me again remind my colleagues that this treaty will provide a significantly increased degree of certainty in a very uncertain world. It will continue our relationship with Russia, one that we forged over decades and one that we must use--not just for our mutual benefit but to act against even more pressing threats such as North Korea, such as Iran, and such as thousands of other emerging threats over the next several years. This treaty will allow us to advance our counterproliferation initiatives across the globe. As such, I urge my colleagues to support ratification of the New START treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd, Durbin, and Tom Udall in the introduction of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Reauthorization Act. This bill, which is dedicated to the son of our former colleague Senator Gordon Smith, would bolster the ability of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration to help prevent suicide among our nation's youth. My efforts during the original enactment of this law, and now this reauthorization, have been focused on enhancing suicide prevention programs on college campuses. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college-age students in the United States, with some 1,100 deaths by suicide occurring in this age group each year. Indeed, we can and must do more to curb this trend. The reauthorization bill we are introducing today would expand existing federally-funded efforts on campuses beyond outreach, education, and awareness about suicide and suicide prevention to include funding for services and the hiring of appropriately trained personnel. These provisions stem from a bill that I introduced in the 108th Congress, the Campus Care and Counseling Act, and I am pleased that they are included in the reauthorization efforts of this law. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and I look forward to continuing efforts with my colleagues to move this bill in the 112th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this week, with little fanfare, we completed work on an important bill, through a bipartisan process, by passage of S. 3984, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010. This bill updates museum and library services funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations. The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national commitment to the institutions that are essential to building strong and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the State and local level. We were able to complete this legislation because we worked together--across the aisle and across the Capitol, and with the input of the museum and library community. I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank our HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Mike Enzi, and Senator Richard Burr for working with me to craft this bipartisan legislation. I would also like to recognize our cosponsors, Senators Cochran, Collins, and Tester. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member John Kline for quickly guiding this bill through the House. No piece of legislation can be enacted without the diligent work of dedicated staff. I would like to thank Kristin Romero and Margaret Bomba of the office of legislative counsel who worked with us to draft the bill. I would also like to recognize the efforts of staff: Thomas Showalter, Pam Smith, and Bethany Little with Chairman Harkin; Beth Buehlmann and Kelly Hastings with Senator Enzi; Celia Sims with Senator Burr; Lory Yudin with the HELP Committee; and in my office, Elyse Wasch, Moira Lenehan-Razzuri, Andrew Odgren, and Jason Kanter. Additionally, all of us who worked on this bill appreciate the technical assistance and feedback we received from the staff of IMLS. Finally, I would like to commend the American Library Association and the American Association of Museums for developing thoughtful recommendations and working with us to improve museum and library services across the Nation. I especially appreciate the wisdom and input I have received from the vibrant library and museum community in Rhode Island. I look forward to this legislation being swiftly signed into law.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. Multiple research studies have shown that people with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and are more likely to die sooner than healthy individuals--in some instances up to 25 years sooner. In order to address this troubling trend, I authored language in the new health insurance reform law to ensure that individuals with multiple co- occurring mental, behavioral, and physical health conditions have access to a coordinated and integrated health care delivery system. Under this provision, Community Mental Health Centers are authorized to provide patients with mental, behavioral, and primary health care all in one location. Recently, I was pleased to learn that two Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island received funding to begin to offer these co- located services. However, many Community Mental Health Centers are unable to provide this broader range of services due to the limited physical space they occupy. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would authorize grants to states for the construction and modernization of these facilities. Indeed, for some Community Mental Health Centers, facility updates are the first step to enhancing patient care. I am also pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader piece of legislation that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today, the Excellence in Mental Health Act. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will continue to work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act. Multiple research studies have shown that people with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and are more likely to die sooner than healthy individuals--in some instances up to 25 years sooner. In order to address this troubling trend, I authored language in the new health insurance reform law to ensure that individuals with multiple co- occurring mental, behavioral, and physical health conditions have access to a coordinated and integrated health care delivery system. Under this provision, Community Mental Health Centers are authorized to provide patients with mental, behavioral, and primary health care all in one location. Recently, I was pleased to learn that two Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island received funding to begin to offer these co- located services. However, many Community Mental Health Centers are unable to provide this broader range of services due to the limited physical space they occupy. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would authorize grants to states for the construction and modernization of these facilities. Indeed, for some Community Mental Health Centers, facility updates are the first step to enhancing patient care. I am also pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader piece of legislation that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today, the Excellence in Mental Health Act. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will continue to work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs. 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 to discuss the tax proposal before us. We are in a critical moment. Our economy is slowly climbing from the depths of a deep recession but without additional support it could easily backslide. We cannot afford to let that happen. There are still too many Americans--15 million--who desperately want the opportunity to work but cannot find a job in this difficult environment. My top priority is creating jobs and sustaining demand to continue job growth in this country. I have serious concerns about several of the provisions of this bill that will not help us accomplish that goal of creating and sustaining jobs, but I will support this package because right now, back in my home State of Rhode Island, there are approximately 65,000 men and women from all walks of life who are unemployed and need this bill. Many of them are individuals in the middle of their careers who have worked since they were 18 or 21 continuously, productively, and now they find themselves for the first time in their lives without any job. If we do not act, they will be without the means to support their families and provide for their children. This bill preserves emergency unemployment insurance to help these individuals make ends meet and help them to hold their families together. It will help ensure they can buy the groceries, pay the utility bills, and literally keep a roof over their heads in many cases. Their situation is one of my primary concerns in these difficult times. Moreover, these unemployment benefits don't just help the jobless, they boost the entire economy as the unemployed spend their benefits at local businesses. Americans want us to focus on creating jobs and generating economic growth. Indeed, for much of the past 2 years, Democrats proposed many things that would help middle-class families and small businesses only to be thwarted or slowed by procedural roadblocks and sometimes disingenuous claims. Just two Saturdays ago we could not break filibusters of two bills that would have passed the middle-class tax cut and also renewed unemployment benefits without un-needed additions. On several occasions over the past few months we have had legislative initiatives for tax extenders that would have included key elements such as a national housing trust fund and key infrastructure incentives. Again, those two were thwarted by procedural roadblocks. But now we are faced with the specter of a tax increase on the middle class during this dispiriting economic time if we do not act. Perhaps we could have avoided this situation. The Bush tax cuts, which I opposed, had an artificial termination point in order to fix them into budget projections. But, again, we are here today at the last minute, and it appears the only path our Republican colleagues will accept is the one before us. Indeed, Republicans will not let this train leave the station unless the very wealthiest hitch a ride too. The challenge we face is the need to sustain and accelerate growth so employment increases while also recognizing the need to reduce the deficit once the economy is stable again. That is no small challenge. As a number of budget deficit commissions have suggested in recent weeks, we may have to consider reforms to Medicare, Social Security, defense funding, tax expenditures, and investment in domestic programs--all of them to stabilize the deficit in the long term. I do not relish those tasks, and I do not imagine America's families relish it either. However, this is a reality we must confront as our economy improves. It is a reality that will be difficult. It is a reality that will be a great challenge, but it is one we must face. This bill includes many provisions that will provide economic growth. As I have mentioned before, the effect of an unemployment insurance extension is not just on the individual recipients, it is estimated by nonpartisan experts that nearly $2 of economic activity is generated for each $1 in benefits. That is a very effective stimulus for the economy. The bill also includes a 2-percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by workers, and after local or State sales taxes, reductions in the payroll tax have the biggest impact on families living on the average wage. Again, this provision is estimated to create more economic activity than it costs, and it will, in essence, be the first raise many workers have seen in several years. In addition, the proposal contains a host of other benefits for working- and middle-class families--by extending the child tax credit for 10.5 million families as well as an extension of a partially refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 for the cost of college tuition. All of this economic activity means jobs and more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans. These are targeted, well-designed provisions worthy of support. Indeed, private sector forecasters as well as economists such as Mark Zandi suggest this bill will help maintain the fragile recovery and could lead to a 1-point drop in the unemployment rate and perhaps as much as a 1 percentage increase in GDP in 2011 as compared to previous baselines that took into account only the extension of the middle-class tax cut and expiring provisions such as the AMT. There is, from experts, considered opinion that this legislation will help grow the economy, reduce the unemployment rate, and put people back to work. The bill also recognizes the need to build on the small business lending and tax credit bills we enacted this summer and fall. Indeed, the provisions to allow businesses to expense 100 percent of all their investments in 2011 is expected to generate more than $50 billion in additional business investment next year. That is private companies investing in private enterprises to put people to work on a private payroll. The bill also encourages businesses to invest in future products by extending the research and development tax credit to keep us competitive in a very competitive world. The bill also recognizes the need for clean, domestic energy by continuing the renewable energy production grants for wind, solar, geothermal, and a host of other technologies. This legislation responsibly ensures that the tax rates in place for lower income and middle-income families stay as they are today. It maintains the middle-class tax cut. Indeed, the great bulk of the benefits of this bill will be directed at stimulating the economy and assisting the average American family. But in the face of this deficit, it is very difficult to justify the provisions of the bill for the wealthiest Americans because they provide negligible economic growth while adding to the deficit. In fact, these provisions work against the two great issues we must grapple with, stimulating growth and beginning to control the deficit. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other experts, the decision to provide millionaires and billionaires with tax breaks will not generate many jobs because they are more apt to save these benefits than circulate them in the local economies throughout the United States. In particular, the decision to insist on such an aggressive estate tax proposal is very difficult to justify. Instead of adopting a commonsense proposal that would have exempted well over 95 percent of all estates, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle demanded that the bill contain a tax break worth more than $25 billion over the next 2 years for the top one-quarter of 1 percent. Let me repeat that, a $25 billion provision that benefits one-quarter of 1 percent of all estates. It is a slight comfort that these provisions are not permanent. While I would gladly support an effort to remove or modify these provisions immediately, at the very least they have to be the first on the list of those tough decisions we have to face in order to reduce the deficit in the future. We do have to address the deficit and part of that effort must clearly be through tax reform and eliminating tax expenditures. I think there is too often a perception that tax cuts are free. As my colleague from Illinois suggested, failing to link the debt ceiling with this particular legislation could give the impression that we can cut taxes with no effect on the deficit. These tax cuts do add to the deficit. We have to recognize that. When we come back to face the difficult issues as we did in the 1990s--I supported President Clinton's efforts which led to a balanced budget, which led to a surplus, which led to employment gains--those decisions involved revenue, cutting entitlements, cutting defense spending, and making a lot of difficult choices. We will have to face those choices again. We are at a point where the benefits of this bill are necessary to accelerate economic growth and to help the unemployed and struggling middle class families. That is why I will support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand there is unanimous consent that I be recognized and then Senator McCain; is that correct?