Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have been debating for weeks now a needed solution to our economic recovery in the United States. We have seen some progress, but it is a long and difficult journey for American families. The depth of the crisis that materialized in the last few years of the Bush administration can't be overcome in just 18 months, although I believe we are headed in the right direction. The legislation we are considering will help us in that journey to recovery. We have seen, in fact, over the last several months, an increase in private sector jobs. We didn't see that in the last several years of the Bush administration. When President Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and we had 22 straight months of job losses. Now we need to turn that dynamic around by creating private sector jobs, but we have to do much more. The great engine of private job creation is small business in America. These provisions are aimed to aid small businesses throughout the country. Small business is an engine of growth. It is the place where people will, I think, find employment as we go forward. Our small business community has been hit very hard by the economic crisis, the financial crisis, and the collapse of the credit bubble. Small businesses have lost more than 6 million jobs since December 2007, and we have to start restoring those jobs. The legislation we are considering--the Small Business Jobs Act--will provide $12 billion in fully paid-for tax breaks for small businesses to bolster confidence in the economy by unlocking frozen credit markets, spurring job creation, and fostering our Nation's burgeoning recovery. These tax incentives will allow small businesses to make investments to help with job growth, purchases, and expansion. I emphasize that these are fully paid for because we have multiple challenges. I have served long enough to recall in 2000, when we were looking at strong employment growth and a Federal budget surplus, and, in 2009, when President Obama took office, we were looking at a job collapse in many parts of the country and a huge deficit, which is still going on. So we have to consider both as we move forward. The particulars of this legislation are important to note because they will contribute, I believe, very significantly--and one would hope very quickly--to increased job opportunities throughout the country. The legislation will incentivize investors by giving 100 percent exclusion from capital gains taxes on small business investments. It will create a targeted $30 billion small business lending fund to provide small community banks with the capital to increase their ability to lend to small businesses. This is particularly notable. I must commend Senator Landrieu for her tenacious advocacy of this position, along with Senator Merkley and others. In fact, this is a bipartisan effort. This proposal will put money in the hands of small community banks that want to lend, that have clients, and that do it the old-fashioned way. They look at the books, they know the borrower, they have faith and confidence in that individual, and they are constrained now because they do not have sufficient capital to expand their lending. With this capital, they will be able to expand lending and go right out to the heart of small businesses throughout the country. Madam President, just as in North Carolina, in Rhode Island I have numerous businesses that will come in and say they are very successful, they want to expand, they can hire a few people, but they just can't get the loan from the bank. This will help. Another provision reduces the tax burden of small businesses by allowing them to carry back general business tax credits to offset their tax burdens from the previous 5 years. Small businesses will also be able to count the general business credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax. That will free up capital for expansion and job growth. The legislation also increases Section 179 expensing--permitting up to $500,000 in capital investments that businesses can expense to immediately get some tax credit for it. It also extends bonus depreciation, allowing taxpayers to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of new equipment. We hope that this will have the small businessman or woman buying a piece of equipment which will require, we hope, a manufacturer or assembler somewhere in the United States to call people back to work to meet this new demand. This is going to increase demand for goods and services, and that is one of the key deficiencies in this current economy. We have a lot of money locked up. It is said, quite authoritatively, that there is about $2 trillion on the balance sheets of corporations throughout the United States that they are not spending. We hope these incentives will produce increased demand which will get them to start spending and provide the kind of private capital investment and momentum that will carry us forward. As I mentioned before, this Small Business Jobs Act has a $30 billion lending fund that is so critical. More than 10 community banks in Rhode Island, for example, are eligible to receive these funds. I have spoken to many of the bank leaders and they are ready to lend right now. They have customers whom they have great faith in, who have a good business plan and are profitable. In fact, many times business owners are willing to guarantee or to put up even personal collateral to get the loan. Yet the bank says: We can't do that because we have reached the limit based on our capital of what we can lend to small business. This raises those limits, and it is absolutely necessary to do that. One other important aspect is that this legislation will raise the limits on loans that the Small Business Administration can make and guarantee. Again, another source of tremendous and important funding is being capped now because they can't make big enough loans because there are certain loan limits. It will also extend the elimination of the fees borrowers pay to the SBA. Now we have businesses that may be ready to hire, but they just can't generate the cash to pay the fees. Now they will be able to get the loan, hire the workers, and move forward. The legislation also supports States because there are many State initiatives. There is $1.5 billion in grants to States that will help in their efforts. There are many States that have programs very much like our Small Business Administration at the Federal level--innovative programs that will be supported. This legislation has bipartisan support, and that is absolutely necessary. Again, I wish to thank particularly my colleagues who were supportive of the cloture motion that has us now on a path to passage. I thank them very much for their efforts. They made a decision that will benefit American business across the country, small businesses in particular. We need to move forward. We need to get this legislation done--I hope this week--as soon as we can. Then we have other legislation we can and should consider. For example, we have a tax extenders bill that will hopefully provide R&D tax credits and other provisions that will help businesses, both large and small but particularly small business. I urge all my colleagues, now that we feel confident we have the votes, let's move to final passage. Let's give American businesses, particularly small businesses, the help they need to move the economy forward. I yield the floor.

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, we are debating the President's nomination to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who has served this country admirably and with great distinction. I rise in wholehearted support of Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to be our next Supreme Court Justice. She has had an illustrious legal career that includes clerking for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court; obtaining tenure at two of the top law schools in the country, the University of Chicago and Harvard; serving as an associate counsel in the Clinton administration; becoming Dean of Harvard Law School; and now serving as Solicitor General of the United States. Casting a vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most consequential votes we face as Senators because no court can review the decisions of the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate arbiters of the law and the Constitution in this country. The Constitution includes the Senate as an active partner, along with the President, in this process of confirming Justices to the Supreme Court. As stated in article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, nominees to the Supreme Court shall only be confirmed ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' This confirmation process and the Senate's role in it serves as a vital democratic check on America's judiciary, particularly in a case where a Supreme Court Justice will serve for a life term. Indeed, one of the Senate's greatest opportunities and responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is achieved through upholding our duty as Senators to give advice and consent on the nominations of the President to the Federal bench. As I have stated before, my test for a nominee is simple and is drawn from the text, the history, and the principles of the Constitution. A nominee's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity, and temperament are all important, but these alone are not enough. I need to be convinced that a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court will live up to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The nominee needs to be committed not only to enforcing laws, but also to doing justice. The nominee needs to be able to make the principles of the Constitution come alive--equality before the law, due process, full and equal participation in the civic and social life of America for all Americans; freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. The nominee also needs to see the unique role the Court plays in helping balance the often conflicting forces in a democracy between individual autonomy and the obligations of community, between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. A nominee for the Supreme Court needs to be able to look forward to the future not just backwards. The nominee needs to make the Constitution resonate in a world that is changing with great rapidity. Elena Kagan passes this test. She is extraordinarily qualified on the basis of her intellectual gifts. But what is most striking about Solicitor General Kagan, in both her academic work and her life work, is her commitment to the Constitution. In a speech she gave in October 2007 at my alma mater, West Point, well before she was considered for Solicitor General or for the Supreme Court, she stated that our Nation is most extraordinary because we, in her words, ``live in a government of laws, not of men or women.'' She used as a touchstone for her speech a place on the West Point campus called Constitution Corner, which was a gift from the West Point class of 1943, who not only served our Nation but defended the Constitution through the rigors of World War II and beyond. There are five plaques at this sight. One of the plaques is titled ``Loyalty to the Constitution,'' one of the principal tenets by which every professional soldier must abide. It basically states what those who serve in the military are keenly aware of and points to the fact that the United States broke with an ancient tradition when it was created. Instead of swearing loyalty to a military leader, the American military swears loyalty to the Constitution. Interestingly enough, although Elena Kagan never wore the uniform of the United States, she has demonstrated this same loyalty to the Constitution throughout her life. I am confident she will continue to uphold and defend our Constitution as she assumes her next role as a Justice of the Supreme Court. During her confirmation hearings, on the role of a judge, she said: As a judge, you are on nobody's team. As a judge, you are an independent actor, and your job is simply to evaluate the law and evaluate the facts and apply one to the other as best, as prudently and wisely as you can. You know, the greatness of our judicial system lies in its independence, and that means when you are on the bench, when you put on the robe, your only master is the rule of law. Supreme Court Justices matter, and their impact on the lives of Americans from all walks of life can be profound. We only need to look at a couple of the recent Supreme Court decisions to understand how profound that impact can be. More than four decades ago, Congress passed laws to protect women and others against workplace discrimination. However, five Justices in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire gave immunity to employers who secretly discriminate against their workers. Thankfully, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which I cosponsored and President Obama signed into law, to ensure equal pay for equal work and to effectively and properly overturn this immunity granted by these five Justices. This year, five Justices in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission favored big corporations by ignoring precedent to bestow upon corporations the same power as any individual citizen to influence elections--in fact, some might argue much greater power through much greater spending. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, who is retiring and who will, I hope, be replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, warned that the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.'' On this point, the words of Lilly Ledbetter are particularly relevant. The plaintiff in the famous case said: We need Justices who understand that law must serve regular people who are just trying to work hard, do right, and make a good life for their families . . . This isn't a game. Real people's lives are at stake. We need Supreme Court Justices who understand that. Elena Kagan understands this point, and she will bring this understanding to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, I am confident that Solicitor General Kagan's tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School will serve her well as she works with her colleagues on the Court. As Dean, she drew acclaim as a pragmatic problem solver who could bridge ideological divides among the faculty. Indeed, her success in leading and bringing together one of the most contentious legal faculties in the Nation is a testament to her interpersonal, oratory, and analytical skills--all of her skills. As someone who had the privilege of graduating from Harvard Law School, I can indeed confirm that it is one of the most intellectually contentious places in the country, as it should be, because it is there where the ideas of law, of Constitution, and of our relationships with one another in this democracy, are vigorously debated. The fact that she has garnered wide bipartisan support is further evidence of her great standing. She has received the endorsement of eight former Solicitors General from both parties, including Ken Starr and Ted Olson; 54 former Deputy and Assistant Solicitors General of both parties; 69 law school deans; and more than 850 law school professors from across the country and across the political spectrum. Just to give an example of how well regarded she is, here is what Professor Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration, had to say: [Elena] Kagan possesses an extraordinary knowledge of the legal issues before the Supreme Court. Whatever else may be said about being a law professor, it is the profession that requires one to know legal subjects comprehensively enough to teach them . . . What I do know is that Kagan will be open- minded and tough minded; that she will treat all advocates fairly and will press them all about the weak points in their arguments; that she will be independent and highly analytical; and that she will seek to render decisions that reflect fidelity to the Constitution and the laws. Clearly, she is not only well qualified, but she also has wide bipartisan support. Before I conclude, I wish to make one final point regarding Elena Kagan's respect and admiration for the military. She has won praise from students who have served our country in uniform for creating a highly supportive environment for students who served in the Armed Forces of the United States and who were attending Harvard Law School. In my view, her respect and admiration for the military is sincere and proven. America's courtrooms are staffed with judges not machines because justice requires human judgments. This is particularly so on the Supreme Court. Of all the hundreds of thousands of cases filed in American Federal courts each year, only a small percentage reach the Supreme Court. These are the hardest of cases--cases that have divided the country's lower courts. These are cases where one constitutional clause may be in conflict with another, where one statute may influence the interpretation of another, and where one core national value may interfere with another. These cases often divide the Justices of the Court by close margins. Surely, the Justices on both sides of a 5-to-4 case can claim to be following the judicial process and respecting the precedents of the Court. What divides their opinions is the set of constitutional values they bring to the case. Elena Kagan, in my view, brings the set of constitutional values that, to quote the words of Lilly Ledbetter again, will make her a Supreme Court Justice ``who understand[s] that law must serve regular people who are just trying to work hard, do right, and make a good life for their families.'' As Elena Kagan herself put it, she will do her ``best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with the law.'' It is with great pleasure that I support the nomination of Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island who, with eloquence and passion, has clearly highlighted a disturbing phenomenon taking place in this Chamber. Well-qualified individuals who have received the support of the Judiciary Committee--in many cases, unanimous support--are being denied a final confirmation vote by the full Chamber. This is a break from our history. At the end of the first Congress, during President Reagan's first term, 88 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George H.W. Bush's term, 72 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress under President Clinton, 126 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George W. Bush's first term, 100 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. As of now, if nothing else is done, President Obama, at the end of this Congress, will have only 36 Circuit and District Court nominees confirmed by the Senate, in contrast to 88 for President Reagan, 72 for President George H.W. Bush, 126 for President Clinton, and 100 for George W. Bush. Something is going on here. What is going on is a deliberate attempt by the minority to frustrate the traditions and precedents of the Senate where, as Senator Whitehouse suggested, there is a long-held view that Senators have more insight into the skills, ability, and integrity of nominees from the Senators' home State than national special interest groups, whose major goal seems to be the generation of controversy for the purposes of contributions. We in Rhode Island have an extraordinarily competent and capable individual. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, Jack McConnell is an accomplished attorney. He is a plaintiff's lawyer. He takes cases of individual Americans, who have been harmed, and he fights the good fight for them. He has been very successful doing it. He has received the bipartisan support of members of the bar, judges of both political parties, and the Providence Journal, our major Statewide newspaper, which has a reputation of being very sensitive to the legitimate concerns and needs of our business community. He is supported because he is an outstanding attorney and because he is an outstanding individual. He is someone who knows the law and knows the court. I am always kind of interested when someone who has spent a long time as a corporate counsel for a big corporation is suddenly--and in most cases--very quickly confirmed as a District Court Judge, even though that individual may or may not have had a lot of experience in a trial court. Here, we have an individual who actually has spent his life in trial court, both Federal and State courts. Jack McConnell is a fair and good man, and he understands that a judge must hear the facts, apply the law, and indicate clearly to all plaintiffs and defendants who come before the court that there is no bias and that the case will be decided fairly on the merits within the bounds of the law. That is something all of my colleagues in Rhode Island, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize that Jack McConnell will do. There is something else about this individual. He is an extraordinarily decent person. That counts for something too. There is no one in our State who is more generous, not only with his money, but with his time. There is no one in our State who is more committed to helping people, not to gain notoriety, but because it is the right thing to do. Those qualities are important. Ultimately, I believe one of the major criteria that should be met by a Judge is that when someone goes before the court, whether it is a big corporation or a person who has been harmed, they know they will be treated fairly. Frankly, Jack McConnell passed that test with flying colors. As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, he passed the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who has used his experience as a lawyer fighting for individuals as well as corporations. He was able to recognize these talents, these skills, and these qualities in Jack McConnell and support him. I appreciate that. But we are here now in a situation where not only Jack McConnell, but 21 other nominees are pending. We have to do more. We have to get them to a vote here in the Senate, and I will insist upon that vote as best I can. Again, the numbers don't lie. They suggest there is something going on here, something that was not at work during the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the George W. Bush administration, regardless of which party was in the majority or the minority. Particularly, when it came to District Court Judges, if they had cleared the Judiciary Committee, if they had the support of the two Senators from the home State, there would be at least an opportunity, an obligation, to bring their nomination to a vote and let the Senate, as a whole, decide. I urge that we return to what has been a dependable practice, one the Senate has embraced for good reasons, that we let these gentlemen and ladies come to the floor for a vote, and that we vote. That is all we ask. I think if that is agreed to, it will provide for not only the disposition of these nominations, but it will continue a tradition of thoughtful, appropriate practice by this Senate. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last Friday, this Chamber played host to heroes: seven wounded warriors from the 82nd Airborne Division, who are currently recuperating at Walter Reed Army Hospital. They came down for a tour of the Capitol, and for moments here on the floor of the Senate, in which they were able to see their government in action. More important, we were able to thank them for their extraordinary service and sacrifice to the Nation. I am particularly proud because they are soldiers from my division--the 82nd Airborne Division. We had among our guests SGT Steven Dandoy, who was wounded last month in a mortar attack in Afghanistan, of the third battalion 321st Field Artillery, whose hometown is Milwaukee, WI; SGT Allen Thomas, who is from Adelphi, MD, and serves with the 2-508 Parachute Infantry Regiment, who was wounded in Afghanistan this past March during an attack from a suicide bomber, and he was joined by his fiancee, Donna; SPC Antonio Brown, from Florence, SC. We were honored to have SPC Antonio Brown from Florence, SC. He was wounded in Iraq in 2007 when a 50-caliber round detonated in his hand. He was serving with the 2nd Battalion of the 325th Parachute Infantry Regiment. SPC John Doherty of Jerome, ID, was wounded when a 50-caliber round detonated in his hand in April while he was serving with the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Amazingly, he recently passed his flight physical with the goal of qualifying as an Army helicopter pilot despite his wound. SPC Jeffrey McKnight of the 1st Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment and hailing from Littleton, CO, was also our guest. He was wounded last month during a vehicle rollover in Afghanistan. SPC William Ross also serves with the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He was our guest also. Specialist Ross hails from Knoxville, TN. He is recovering from a gunshot wound he received during a dismounted patrol in March. He was joined by his fiancee Tiffany. SPC Nicholas Stone of the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment was also our guest. He hails from Buffalo, NY. He is recovering from wounds suffered in an IED attack on a dismounted patrol in May. He was joined by his wife Kristen. Let me also say it is appropriate to recognize the families of these wounded warriors because they, too, serve. They, too, sacrifice. In fact, during the long hours of rehabilitation and therapy at Walter Reed, they are at the bedside literally of their wounded soldiers. I thank them. I also thank SFC Albert Comfort and SSG Rodolfo Nunez from the 82nd Airborne Division. They are the Division Liaisons for the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These young men left the comfort and safety of their homes all across this country to serve this Nation. Their service, their sacrifice sustains us. They are the fabric of our defense. They are those young men and women who serve in great danger but with unfailing fidelity to the Army and to the Nation. Because of them, we are able to oppose those who seek us harm. We can never repay them enough. We can never thank them enough. But last Friday we had seven of these wounded warriors down just to say: Thank you, well done, and to give them a chance to look at the Senate and see the history that was made by their predecessors, and which they are sustaining and will make in the future. It was a special moment for me because these soldiers come from the 82nd Airborne Division. One of the great privileges of my life--in fact, I believe this is one of the greatest privileges an American can have--was leading American soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division as the company commander of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. I learned a lot about service, sacrifice, and the contribution of Americans from across this globe, as well as the great potential of Americans, not only to defend our Nation but to do great things, furthering the goals and ideals of this country. I conclude by saying to these young soldiers: Thank you very much for your service. Good luck. Godspeed. I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Starz, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 111th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture on the unemployment insurance extension bill. Unfortunately, we are still delaying and deferring the final vote on this measure. This is essential to millions of Americans who need the money they receive-- which, frankly, it is not a huge amount. In Rhode Island, the average weekly unemployment compensation is $360 a week. But they need to have some certainty that this program is going to be there at least for the next several months. We have made a lot of points rhetorically. Now it is time to take the final vote, to move forward, and to deal with a more fundamental issue; that is, how to create the jobs--now that we are providing some assistance to those who are unemployed. How do we go ahead and further create jobs in this economy so our unemployment rolls shrink? That task is challenging. We have taken 2 months now to get to this juncture. In the past, extending unemployment compensation was a bipartisan initiative. It was done routinely and repeatedly. It was always extended as long as the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent. Today the unemployment rate nationally is 9.5 percent. In my State of Rhode Island it is 12 percent. We are not alone. There are many States that are very much mired in a huge economic crisis. The other factor of this unemployment situation is that it has been a long-term unemployment for so many people, nearly half of those unemployed. So the money they put aside, the rainy day money, the money they put in the coffee can for that special occasion or that special treat, has long been exhausted. This unemployment compensation is absolutely essential for people. There are many on the other side who will stand and say: We are all for unemployment compensation; we just want to pay for it. Well, historically, we have not paid for it. It is truly an emergency expenditure. The other factor that is critical to notice is that unemployment compensation does not add to the structural deficit. That is in sharp contrast to the tax cuts, which my colleagues on the other side are urging be extended without paying for them, and in sharp contrast to the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s, the Medicare Part D Program, which was not paid for. Those programs do add to the structural deficit because they are not replenished periodically in the good times because people qualify for them as soon as they hit an age--65--or as soon as they qualify by filing their income taxes. Those are structural deficit issues. Yet the other side says that is not important. I can't figure that out. If the deficit is so overwhelming, so all-consuming, then why are my colleagues on the Republican side, first, suggesting we extend all the tax cuts of the Bush years without any offsets; and why did they, in the past, vote for the creation of Medicare Part D, really? Why did they vote for 2 wars that were unpaid for? There is something inconsistent in that. As I pointed out, unemployment compensation is not a problem of structural deficit because, as the economy recovers, people will continue to pay into the unemployment compensation trust fund through payroll taxes. In good times those funds increase so that in the unfortunate times we can provide assistance. What we are doing now with this legislation is recognizing that this is a particularly challenging moment for families and for States, and they need further assistance. Part of the legislation we have is fully compensating the States for the Extended Benefits program, which, in other times, are shared 50 percent by the States and 50 percent by the Federal Government. In these extraordinary times, we have to pass this legislation. We also recognize, too, in terms of the offsets of the legislation, that this is part of our overall attempt to stimulate the economy. For every dollar of unemployment benefits, there is at least $1.60 or $1.90 in economic activity. It makes sense. When they get that $360 a week, they take whatever resources they have and they go to the store. They don't go off jetting to Europe on a vacation. They go to the store and buy food, clothes, and those things that are essential to their families. Mr. President, I am continually baffled by the reluctance, the resistance, and the obstruction of the other side in terms of doing what has to be done, and done promptly. It will be done in a way in which it will assist the recovery that we are beginning to sense throughout the country. I note the arrival of my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island. I think he is about to take the floor. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are seeing over the last 12 months a slow recovery in our job market. In the last 6 months, we have seen that accelerate but not sufficiently to reduce unemployment to anything comparable to a full employment economy. This year, so far, however, we have generated 600,000 jobs in the private sector. That is in sharp contrast to January of 2009 when President Obama took office and when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. But despite this improvement in the job market, we have a long way to go. It is particularly troubling to be, once again, anticipating the vote tomorrow on the extension of unemployment benefits. These benefits lapsed weeks ago. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are without access to unemployment funds--the insurance funds they paid each week out of their daily wages for the time they hoped would never come but has come--that they could rely upon for some support as they look for work. In Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is 12 percent--absolutely horrendous. We are seeing more and more of this unemployment being long term, not a temporary situation. Nearly half--45.5 percent--of those unemployed have been out of work for more than 6 months, and in those 6 months, the excess savings one might have, the ability to cut a few corners to make it week by week, are less and less effective in simply keeping the lights on and keeping the family together. Then when you take away the unemployment compensation, people are, frankly, becoming desperate. Yet many on the other side are completely indifferent to this. They say it is not their problem. Well, it is their problem. It is our problem. If we cannot do this, then we are failing in a basic function which is to provide support for Americans in crisis, and that is what we must do. People are looking for work. The average individual has been looking for work for 35 weeks. That is almost a year, or a big part of a year. Yet, in the midst of this economic downturn--with 14.6 million unemployed Americans--my colleagues on the other side have forced us to go through procedural hoops to get a vote on an unemployment compensation extension. The Senate has failed on three occasions to pass this extension. It is not because there is not a majority of Senators who want to, but because procedurally, we need 60 votes to end debate and vote on the measure. We have let this program lapse for short periods and now it has been lapsed since June 2, and that is unacceptable. There is no other word for it other than obstruction--stopping something that has been done routinely on a bipartisan basis in every major job recession in this country in our lifetime. This should be a simple bipartisan endeavor. George W. Bush had a period of time where we had a recession in the job market and we, on a bipartisan basis, extended unemployment insurance. There were no repeated delays, stretching it out, only 2- month extensions or 3-month extensions to be considered. It was done because we had to help Americans who needed the help and who had contributed to the fund through their unemployment compensation insurance. We have never failed to extend unemployment compensation while the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent. Today, if your State has 7.4 percent, you are in recovery. You are in great shape. We have 12 percent in Rhode Island. If I go around the country, there are too many States such as Rhode Island, with 10, 11, 12 percent unemployment. The national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent. So this is an historical anomaly. We have routinely, on a bipartisan basis, extended unemployment compensation as long as the unemployment rate has been at least 7.4 percent. But now, in the midst of a much worse national economic crisis, most of my colleagues are simply indifferent to it. I am hopeful tomorrow we will rally at least two who recognize the need to respond to the needs of their constituents. We have extended it for much longer periods of time than the current period. In the 1970s, under Presidents Ford and Carter--again, through two Presidents, one Republican, one Democrat--3 years and 1 month of extended unemployment benefits. In the 1980s under President Reagan, yes, we extended unemployment compensation benefits without paying for it under Ronald Reagan on a bipartisan basis to help Americans for 2 years and 10 months. In the 1990s, under President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush and President Clinton, 2 years and 6 months. So we are hardly at the point where these benefits have gone on so long that they are intolerable. Again, routinely we have done this on a bipartisan basis, Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses, Democratic Congresses. What I would argue has changed is our colleagues on the other side. Now we are going through another procedural vote and at the end of the day, on the final merits, this could pass by 75, 80, 90 votes, because no one wants to be accused of not extending unemployment benefits. But this whole procedural strategy of delay after delay after delay effectively has denied millions of people not just the dollars, which are important, but the small sense of security that they can rely on these funds, that there is someplace they can get help. In Rhode Island, the average weekly benefit is $360. They can get roughly $360 a week to feed their family, to provide for the essentials in life. When that is stripped away, they lose more than just $360; they lose the sense that there is anything out there that is going to help. Beyond this procedural delay, some of my colleagues are arguing: Well, the reason we don't want to give unemployment compensation is it is a disincentive to work. I say $360 a week is not a disincentive for people to work who have worked all of their lives, making much more than that, who are desperate to work. The reality is that for every worker unemployed today who is out there looking around, there are not the jobs. In fact, there are five unemployed workers for every available job. This is not a situation where they are sort of sifting through and saying, Well, I don't like that work; that is too far for me to go. Talk to your neighbors, as we all do. They will take almost anything to get back in the workforce, and just to make more than, in Rhode Island, $360 a week. So that argument is disingenuous, but it has been raised here as if it is the gospel. It is not. We are in a deep economic crisis. Most of it is the result of policies that my colleagues enthusiastically supported: deep tax cuts to benefit, because of the nature of the income tax, the wealthiest Americans; more than low-income Americans. Two wars unfunded. In fact, I think this is probably the first time in the history of this country where we cut taxes in a time of war rather than trying to pay for these wars. The largest expansion of an entitlement program--Medicare Part D--in the history of the country since the 1960s, unpaid for. I could go on and on and on. That has led to a myriad of other policies--lax regulation; inattention to the lack of innovation in our country; the looking on as other countries such as China and others have taken bold steps in terms of infrastructure construction; the development of new technologies, including alternate energy and high-speed electric rail transportation--the Bush administration sort of casually tended to ignore it. I don't think anything indicates clearly the priorities of that side and this side. We have been struggling for months to try to pass an extension of unemployment compensation, but being told we have to pay for it. In the same breath, our colleagues say, But we have to extend the Bush tax cuts, including the estate tax cuts, without paying for them. We can't help people struggling to find work with $360 a week, but we can help multibillionaires with their estate taxes. I would argue that if you want to invest in productivity in America, help working people get jobs and work, and they will pay their taxes, they will work hard, they will contribute to the community. Now we have to deal with the deficit, but the notion that the $34 billion we are talking about today in unemployment compensation is going to rank with the $3.28 trillion that these Bush tax extensions will cost the country it is not even apples and oranges. Literally and ideologically we can't pay for tax cuts, yet the deficit is the most important problem we face. It doesn't make sense, and it particularly doesn't make sense to Americans who are out there desperately looking for work. Again, when you look at where this deficit came from, I remember in the 1990s when we stood up as Democrats without any Republican help and passed an economic program that resulted in not only deficit reduction but a $236 billion surplus. It resulted in not only economic growth but strong employment growth through the nineties. When President George W. Bush took office, he was looking at a significant projected surplus. He was looking at solid employment numbers and a growing, expanding economy. In the 8 years he was in office, he took that surplus and not only turned it into a deficit, but he increased the national debt more in 8 years than had been done in the previous history of the country. Then, again, to have my colleagues on the other side suddenly discover that deficits are important--it wasn't important enough for them in the nineties to stand with us and vote to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and raise the surplus. It wasn't important enough for them in the Bush administration, which adopted programs and policies to undercut that fiscal stability and put us into a precipitous economic collapse--and now it is important. It is important, but when we talk about this issue of unemployment compensation, it is central to this debate. Robert Bixby, president of the Concord Coalition, which has been, throughout the years, one of the most consistent in terms of fiscal responsibility, put it well when he said: As a deficit hawk, I wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. It is not going to add to the long- term structural deficit, and it does address a serious need. I just feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto the wrong street corner at the wrong time, and now they are getting mugged. That is what is going on. They are mugging a program the American people need. It is close at hand. It can invoke this notion of responsible deficit reduction. Where was all this responsible deficit reduction talk when they were proposing Medicare Part D, which is a huge benefit to the pharmaceutical industry--without any payments, a lot of expensive entitlement, which adds to the structural deficit, because year in and year out, when you get to be 65 years old, you qualify for Part D. Unemployment benefits are countercyclical--people pay into it, it builds up the trust funds in the States, and then when you meet a point at which you need it, it should be there. It should be there now. The other point that is important to make is, for every dollar of unemployment benefits there is $1.90 of economic activity. This is a stimulus measure too. At a time when we are seeing a fragile recovery, we need to put more muscle behind the recovery. Not only are we giving people a chance to make ends meet, when they take their unemployment compensation and other resources and go into the marketplace, it provides an increase in economic activity. In fact, if we don't have increased economic activity, there is a danger this recovery will be very slow--painfully slow--and that would be unfortunate, because what we measure in terms of economic recovery is measured in American families by the opportunities to send their children to school, the opportunities to provide more for their families. If that is inhibited over months and months, then those who suffer are the American families. There are other aspects of this. For example, the Joint Economic Committee estimated that by the end of 2010--this year--290,000 unemployed disabled workers--these are people who work but have a disability--will exhaust their benefits. If these individuals choose to drop out of the labor market and go onto the Social Security disability rolls, go through the process of being qualified and approved for disability, over the lifetime, this could result in $24.2 billion in costs, contrasted to the $721 million this year that this group would receive in extended benefits. It is a simple sort of issue. Do we want to keep people in the workforce--at least keep them looking for work with unemployment benefits--or do we want them to say: I will give up and declare that I can't work again, and I will go see if my disability can be covered by Social Security disability insurance and, for the rest of my life, I will collect my Social Security disability, even though I would really like to work. That is another aspect of this problem. We have a challenge tomorrow, when we greet our new colleague from West Virginia, to stand and extend unemployment benefits. Once again, if we look at history, this should have been done weeks ago on a strong, bipartisan basis, putting aside the relative politics of the moment and concentrating on what we should do for the American people. Tomorrow we will have a chance to do that, and I hope we do. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on June 29, 2010, the House-Senate conference committee completed its deliberations on the most significant financial regulatory legislation since the 1930s. And, now, this conference report is before the Senate for final enactment. It will fundamentally change how we protect consumers, families, and small business from the reckless and abusive practices of the financial sector, and it will provide a framework for economic growth without the peril of periodic taxpayer bailouts of the financial sector. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 is a significant achievement. The legislation before the Senate declares that big banks cannot continue to take enormous risk, reaping billions in profits and rewarding their executives with hefty bonuses while counting on taxpayers to bail them out when they get in trouble. Unregulated mortgage lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will not be repaid; loans that cripple families and communities. And, banks will no longer operate in an unregulated, opaque, and dangerous market for derivatives that helped lead us to the brink of financial catastrophe last year. However, the events of the last decade and, particularly, the last several years should caution all of us with respect to the efficacy of any single legislative initiative. This bill must be thoughtfully and vigorously implemented. Indeed, the regulators must be particularly vigilant to ensure that this legislative effort is not undone by powerful interests who will be constrained by its provisions. In the years ahead, regulators must have the resources and the will to enforce these provisions to protect consumers and to protect the economy. The Congress must be prepared to provide rigorous oversight and move quickly to ensure that regulatory supervision will keep pace with a dynamic global marketplace. More than a decade of excessive risk taking and lax regulation culminated in financial collapse in the autumn of 2008. The ensuing economic chaos has left millions unemployed and underemployed, precipitated a foreclosure crisis that still haunts neighborhoods throughout the country, and shattered the dreams of millions of American families. With this new legislation, we create for the first time a consumer watchdog--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--that will solely focus on protecting consumers from unscrupulous financial activities. The law gives this agency independent rulemaking, examination, and enforcement responsibilities, and clear authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial activities against middle-class families. And it consolidates the existing responsibilities of many regulators to ensure that there is a less fragmented, more comprehensive, and a fully accountable approach to protecting consumers. The new Bureau represents a fundamental shift in how we inform Americans about abuses by banks, credit card companies, finance companies, payday lenders, and other financial institutions. It will focus these companies on doing their job of providing responsible and constructive financial products to help families and small businesses succeed, rather than destructive products that cause them to fail by draining their income and savings. I am also pleased that the Senate voted 98 to 1 to approve the bipartisan amendment I offered with Senator Scott Brown to create an Office of Service Member Affairs within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This office will educate and empower members of the military and their families, help monitor and respond to complaints, and help coordinate consumer protection efforts among Federal and State agencies. Although I would have preferred for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to have sole authority over consumer protection matters for all banks and nonbank financial companies, the final bill represents a strong regime for consumer protection, including rulewriting authority over all entities. It also provides the Bureau with authority to examine and enforce regulations for banks and credit unions with assets of over $10 billion; all mortgage-related businesses, such as lenders, servicers, and mortgage brokers; payday lenders; student lenders; and all large debt collectors and consumer reporting agencies. One glaring exception is the carve-out for auto lenders. I opposed the Brownback amendment that created a special loophole for auto dealer-lenders, and I also opposed the compromise that is included in the conference report. The original protections in the bill were not meant to vilify auto dealers. The vast majority of dealers in my State of Rhode Island and across the country are hard-working business owners who operate responsibly. Rather, this debate was about ensuring fair and consistent scrutiny of all lending institutions. We cannot ignore the abuses that service members and others have endured because of predatory auto loans. We have learned from the debate that the abuse of service members by some auto dealers is an epidemic. During the debate I received a memo citing 15 recent examples of auto finance abuses just at Camp Lejeune alone. This problem will require close scrutiny after the bill is implemented. I am also pleased that the legislation includes provisions from the Durbin amendment that will protect small business from unreasonable credit card company fees by requiring the Federal Reserve to issue rules ensuring that fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for debit card transactions are both reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing those transactions. These provisions will allow small businesses to invest more and pass on greater savings to their customers rather than spend their earnings on unreasonable interchange fees. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates a new Financial Stability Oversight Council, comprised of existing regulators, to identify and respond to emerging risks throughout the financial system. This new council represents another significant improvement to protect families from devastating economic trends by, for the first time, creating one single entity responsible for looking across the financial system to prevent and respond to problems. This section of the conference report also puts in place a new rigorous system of capital and leverage standards that will discourage banks from getting so large that they put our financial system at risk again. The new Financial Stability Oversight Council will make recommendations to the Federal Reserve to apply strict rules for capital, leverage, liquidity, and risk management so that firms that grow too big will face stricter rules that will likely deter the bigger is better mentality of too many banks. The council will also make recommendations for nonbank financial companies that have grown so large or complex that their activities pose a threat to the financial stability of the United Sates. No financial institution, bank or otherwise, will be able to take risks to multiply their gains without holding adequate capital. And, more importantly, such institutions will be on notice that the taxpayers will not bail them out. The conference report includes a new Office of Financial Research, a proposal that I developed to provide an entity capable of researching, modeling, and analyzing risks throughout the financial system. For too long, those charged with keeping the banking system stable have lacked the data and analytical power to keep up with complex financial activities. This office ends that situation and takes a bold step forward to understand the factors that threaten to rip holes in our financial system, provide early warnings, and allow regulators to act on that information. As we create this new office, I will ensure that it retains its independence and broad data collection, budget, and hiring authority, so we are sure to better identify and mitigate economic challenges in the future. The challenge presented by the task of understanding the financial markets and monitoring systemic risk will require a sustained, integrated research effort that brings together some of the top researchers and practitioners in the country from a diverse range of relevant disciplines. The Office of Financial Research must become a world class institution that can go ``toe to toe'' with the top Wall Street banks. In addition, this law creates a safe way to liquidate large financial companies, so that taxpayers will never again have to prop up a failing firm to avoid sending shockwaves through the financial system. Shareholders and unsecured creditors, not taxpayers, will bear losses, and culpable management will be removed. Financial institutions will pay for their failures, not taxpayers. Indeed, the existing rules on emergency lending authority and debt guarantees will be substantially changed to ensure that such tools cannot be used to bail out individual firms. This will send an important message to Wall Street: operate at your own risk since the taxpayers will no longer be in the business of bailing you out. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes important new limits on banks engaging in proprietary trading and in owning and investing in hedge funds and private equity funds. These provisions are known as the Volcker rule or the Merkley-Levin amendment. These new rules will help ensure that banks are not betting with consumer bank deposits on risky activities for the banks' own profit. Until the last few decades, commercial banking and investment banking were largely conducted by separate institutions. However, in recent years, banks have engaged in a multitude of higher risk activities, such as short-term trading for a bank's own profit, and the sponsoring of hedge funds and private equity funds. The law changes that and prohibits any bank, thrift, holding company, or affiliate from engaging in proprietary trading or sponsoring or investing in a hedge fund or private equity fund. It also prohibits activities that involve material conflicts of interest between banks and their clients, customers, and counterparties. The conference report also includes two provisions in this area that I authored. One requires the chief executive officer at a banking entity to certify annually that it does not, directly or indirectly, guarantee, assume, or otherwise insure the obligations or performance of the hedge fund or private fund. The other provision requires banking entities to set aside more capital commensurate with the leverage of the hedge fund or private equity fund. Although the final provisions included in the bill represent a stronger and more targeted approach to reducing risk in our banking system, I believe the change during the conference to allow for a 3 percent de minimus exclusion from the ban on sponsoring or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds was unwise. The original Merkley- Levin proposal did not include such an exclusion. Congress and the regulators will need to monitor bank activities very closely in the coming years to ensure that this exclusion is not abused. The bill also makes some changes to consolidate our country's fragmented and inefficient system for supervising banks and holding companies. It eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision, a particularly lax supervisor, and redistributes responsibilities for bank oversight and supervision to bring greater consistency and more effective oversight to all firms. These changes are an important step forward, although additional consolidation and streamlining of our regulatory agencies could have further improved the effectiveness of the system. The Dodd-Frank bill also closes a significant gap in financial regulation by requiring advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based on legislation that I introduced, we will for the first time bring advisers to those funds within the umbrella of financial regulation. This will allow regulators to obtain the basic information they need to prevent fraud and mitigate systemic risk, while at the same time providing investors with more information and greater transparency. Advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds--called ``private funds'' in the legislation--will have to register with either the SEC or a State, depending on the size of the funds they manage. Fund advisers with assets under management over $150 million must register with the SEC. Advisers to other types of funds will continue to have similar requirements, but the threshold for SEC registration will be $100 million. I also successfully included language in the conference report to ensure that State registration is only available to eligible fund advisers if the State has a registration and examination program. From the beginning of this process I fought against any carve-outs in this title for private equity, venture capital, and family offices. While I successfully convinced the conferees to drop a carve-out for private equity advisers, the bill still contains problematic exemptions for venture capital firms and family offices. Through hearings and other means, I will continue to work to create a regulatory system in which none of the fraud and systemic risks that may lurk within private pools of capital remain out of view and reach of regulators. On derivatives, the bill closes another huge set of regulatory gaps by overturning a law that prevented regulators from overseeing the shadowy over-the-counter derivatives market and, as a result, bringing accountability and transparency to the market. As we have learned from AIG and Lehman Brothers, derivatives were at a minimum the accelerant that complicated and expanded the financial crisis. A major problem with derivatives is that they have not been regulated nor well-understood by even those buying and selling them. The legislation changes that and brings transparency and greater efficiency to the marketplace for swaps--derivatives in which two parties exchange certain benefits based on the value of an underlying reference like an interest rate--by requiring the reporting of the terms of these contracts to regulators and market participants. It will move as many swaps as possible from being opaque, bilateral transactions onto clearinghouses, exchanges, and other trading platforms. This should help make the marketplace fairer and more efficient by providing companies and investors with complete information on the market. Firms will also be required to put forward sufficient capital to engage in these transactions, which should help rein in the excessive speculation we saw in the past. I successfully offered several amendments during the conference to correct potential opportunities for regulatory arbitrage between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. One of my improvements requires the SEC and the CFTC to conduct joint rulemaking in certain key areas rather than create potential gaps by conducting them separately. Other amendments clarify the definitions of mixed swap, security-based swap agreements, and index--which are all important terms that fall at the nexus of the two agencies' oversight--to ensure that the new swaps rules cannot be gamed and manipulated. In a significant improvement to public transparency of swaps data, I successfully included another amendment that will ensure that regulators can require public reporting of trading and pricing data for uncleared transactions, not just aggregate data on transactions, just as they can for cleared transactions. Also important are provisions to give the Federal Reserve a role in setting risk management standards for derivatives clearinghouses and other critical payment, clearing, and settlement functions, which has been a priority of mine given their importance to the financial system and their potential vulnerability to both natural and manmade disruptions. The Dodd-Frank conference report also makes important improvements to the Federal Reserve System to ensure that as a financial regulator, it is accountable to the American public rather than to Wall Street. Among other governance improvements, the bill incorporates my proposal to create a new position of Vice Chairman for Supervision on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which should help ensure that supervision does not take a back seat to other priorities. The new Vice Chairman will develop policy recommendations for the board regarding the supervision and regulation of depository institution holding companies and other financial firms supervised by the board. He or she will also oversee the supervision and regulation of such firms. Although the Senate bill included my proposal to require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, the provision was stripped out during conference. If the Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington are required to be confirmed by the Senate, then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who played a pivotal and perhaps more powerful role in obligating taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis, should also be subject to the same public confirmation process. Wall Street should not have the ability to choose who is in such a powerful position. Although the final bill limits class A directors-- who represent the stockholding member banks of the Federal Reserve District--from participating in the process, it still allows the other directors, who could be bankers or represent other powerful interests, to vote for the head of the New York Reserve Bank. I believe that more still needs to be done to make this position truly accountable to the taxpayers. The Dodd-Frank Act also includes a number of strong investor protection provisions that represent a significant step forward in how we oversee our capital markets and ensure that investors have the best information available for their decisionmaking. This title reflects strong proposals I have put forward as the chairman of the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, including robust accountability provisions for credit rating agencies, and provisions to strengthen the tools and authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The conference report includes strong new rules I helped write to address problems we saw at credit rating agencies leading up to the financial crisis. It creates an Office of Credit Ratings at the SEC to increase oversight of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, and contains strong new rules regarding disclosure, conflicts of interest, and analyst qualifications. Perhaps most significantly, it includes a strong new pleading standard I crafted that will make it easier for investors to take legal action if a rating agency knowingly or recklessly fails to review key information in developing a rating. I also worked with the chairman and my colleagues in conference to incorporate more than a dozen improvements to the securities laws that will protect investors by strengthening the SEC's ability to bring enforcement actions, addressing issues revealed by the Madoff fraud, and modernizing the SEC's ability to obtain critical information. In particular, these provisions would enhance the ability of the SEC to hire outside experts, strengthen oversight of fund custodians, modernize the ability of the SEC to obtain information from the firms it oversees, and clarify and enhance SEC penalties and other authorities. I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains extraterritoriality language that clarifies that in actions brought by the SEC or the Department of Justice, specified provisions in the securities laws apply if the conduct within the United States is significant, or the external U.S. conduct has a foreseeable substantial effect within our country, whether or not the securities are traded on a domestic exchange or the transactions occur in the United States. I also support the establishment of a program to reward whistleblowers when the SEC brings significant enforcement actions based upon original information provided by the whistleblower, and I look forward to the SEC rules that will detail the framework for this program. Although I would have preferred the proposal in the Senate bill by Senator Schumer to provide the SEC with self-funding, I am pleased that the amendment on SEC funding that I offered with Senator Shelby during conference was included in the conference report. These provisions would keep the SEC budget within the annual appropriations process, but change how the funding process would work for the Commission. Our proposal includes budget bypass authority, under which the SEC would provide Congress with its assessment of its budget needs at the same time it provides this information to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the President, as part of his annual budget request to the Congress, would be required to include the SEC's budget request in unaltered form. The language will also have the SEC deposit up to $50 million per year of the registration fees into a new reserve fund, which can be used for longer range planning for technology and other agency tools. The SEC will have permanent authority to obligate up to $100 million in any fiscal year out of the reserve fund. One important investor protection that was also supported by Senators Levin, Coburn, and Kaufman but not included in the final bill was language that would have corrected what we and many others, including legal scholars, regard as the mistaken Supreme Court decision in Gustafson v. Alloyd. Before the Supreme Court's decision in this case, the rule was simple but clear: be careful not to mislead when selling securities in both public and private offerings. After Gustafson, this simple rule was needlessly complicated and limited just to public offerings. Our amendment, which we will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to add to another legislative vehicle in the future, would have put investors in private offerings on the same level as investors in public offerings, thereby restoring congressional intent and a standard that was in place for 60 years before the Supreme Court decided Gustafson. One of the lessons learned from the Bush era financial collapse is that too often rules were ignored and information was hidden. That is why I am extremely disappointed that the conference report includes an exemption for companies with less than $75 million in market capitalization from the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b). This change will exempt more than 5,000 public companies from audits, despite the fact that small companies have often been shown to be more prone to both accounting fraud and to accounting errors, including among the highest rates of restatements. Enacting this exemption in the name of reducing paperwork, when extensive evidence indicates that the costs of compliance are reasonable and dropping, is unnecessary and unwise. I think there will be a price in the future as fraud increases and investors suffer. I am also disappointed that conferees included a provision that overturns a recent court case regarding equity indexed annuities. Equity indexed annuities are financial products that combine aspects of insurance and securities, but are sold primarily as investments. This language will preclude State and Federal securities regulators from applying strong disclosure, suitability, and sales practice standards to these often risky and harmful products. I believe this is bad policy. Clearly with the State securities regulators on one side of this issue, and the insurance regulators on the other--this is not a matter which should have been resolved in a conference committee. The regulation of equity indexed annuities deserves more consideration through hearings and the development of a legislative record that informs the Congress of what changes should happen in this area. I am pleased that the conference report makes it clear that after conducting a study, the SEC has the authority to impose a fiduciary duty on brokers who give investment advice, and that the advice must be in the best interest of their customers. It also includes language that gives shareholders a say on CEO pay with the right to a nonbinding vote on salaries and golden parachutes. This gives shareholders the ability to hold executives accountable, and to disapprove of misguided incentive schemes. I am also happy that after much dispute, the bill makes it clear that the SEC has the authority to grant shareholders proxy access to nominate directors. These requirements can help shift management's focus from short-term profits to long-term stability and productivity. I am pleased that the conference report includes several provisions to discourage predatory lending and provide much needed foreclosure relief. To reduce risk, this legislation requires those companies that sell products like mortgage backed securities to hold onto at least 5 percent of what they're selling so that these companies have the incentive to sell only those products they would own themselves. In other words, we make sure that there is some ``skin in the game''. The conference report also further levels the playing field by enacting some commonsense proposals to protect borrowers. Lenders will now have to ensure that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage, and they can no longer steer borrowers into a more expensive mortgage product when the borrower qualifies for a more affordable one. The bill outlaws pre-payment penalties that trapped so many borrowers into unaffordable loans, and those lenders who continue their predatory ways will be held accountable by consumers for as high as 3 years of interest payments and damages plus attorney's fees. Additionally, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have the authority to investigate and enforce rules against all mortgage lenders, servicers, mortgage brokers, and foreclosure scam operators so that hardworking Americans have a strong financial cop on the beat that has the interests of consumers in mind. Finally, I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes several provisions, some of which come from legislation I first introduced last Congress and revised this Congress, to provide much needed foreclosure relief to those who have borne the brunt of this crisis. First, it provides $1 billion for loans to help qualified unemployed homeowners with reasonable prospects for reemployment to help cover mortgage payments. Second, I worked with my colleagues to ensure that the additional funding for HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program would reach all States, including Rhode Island. Third, I not only supported the inclusion of legal assistance for foreclosure- related issues, but I also fought to ensure that Rhode Island, which has one of the highest rates of foreclosure and unemployment, would be in a better position to receive priority consideration for this assistance. Lastly, I worked to include a national foreclosure database to give regulators an important tool to monitor and anticipate issues stemming from foreclosures and defaults in our housing markets and better pinpoint assistance to struggling homeowners. Before I conclude I would like to take a moment to thank Kara Stein of my staff, who also serves as the staff director of the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, which I chair, and Randy Fasnacht, a detailee to the subcommittee from the GAO. They did a remarkable job and worked tirelessly. I also want to recognize the contributions of James Ahn of my staff as well as the foundation that Didem Nisanci, formerly of my staff, helped lay for this process. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of many others, including Chairman Dodd and his staff. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. But the Senate's work does not end with the bill's passage. It will have to monitor and oversee the law's implementation very closely. The Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will make significant improvements to consumer protection that will benefit families and communities in my own State of Rhode Island and across the country. It will help create more transparent, fair, and efficient capital markets in our country, which will help create jobs and support American businesses. And it will provide a more secure and stable economic footing for the decades ahead. Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, while I strongly support the Dodd-Frank conference report, I am concerned and disappointed that the legislation includes a particular provision that would exempt indexed annuity products from securities regulation. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying letters in opposition to this provision from AARP, the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Financial Planning Association be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, next Monday, LTG Franklin Hagenbeck will retire from the U.S. Army after 39 years of service. He is a friend and a classmate from West Point, the class of 1971. Buster Hagenbeck has distinguished himself as a soldier, as a scholar, as an individual of peerless leadership ability. He entered West Point with the class of 1971. He graduated and was commissioned an infantry officer. He served in a succession of assignments, culminating as the commander of the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. There he fought the fight in Operation Enduring Freedom. He served with great distinction, great judgment, and great discernment of the situation. He certainly not only exemplified the courage and character of our troops, but he felt very deeply for their concern and welfare. That is the type of individual, that is the type of soldier he is. After serving as the G-1 of the U.S. Army, he was designated the 57th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. In the last several years, he has distinguished himself as a leader on not only issues of academic excellence but also, much more important, fulfilling the fundamental mission of the Military Academy to produce men and women committed to the motto of the academy: ``Duty, honor, country.'' Selfless service to the Nation. Buster Hagenbeck personifies that spirit. Under his leadership, West Point has been recognized by Forbes magazine as the best liberal arts college in the country. Every year it has successful candidates for Rhodes Scholarships and Marshall Scholarships. It is ranked at the very top in terms of engineering schools in the United States. But the real hallmark of West Point, as it always has been and always must be, is the men and women they produce, the young lieutenants who are today serving in Iraq and serving in Afghanistan, serving with courage and distinction. I think it is not only comforting for them to know but inspiring that their Superintendent led forces in Afghanistan before them, that he knows what lies ahead of them, and that he has done everything in his capacity and power to ensure that they are ready to serve the Nation and lead the Army. I have been privileged to be his friend, to know both him and his wife Judy, to be a beneficiary of their warm friendship and their kindness. As he retires from the U.S. Army, ending the last class of 1971 graduates in active service to the Army and the Nation, I congratulate him and thank him.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary officer and gentleman--my dear friend BG Patrick Finnegan. Pat Finnegan and I go back a long way. We were classmates from the class of 1971 at West Point. We went to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University together. We went to the infantry officer basic course together, the airborne school. In fact, I was Lieutenant Finnegan's platoon leader. Pat went on to serve first as an infantry officer and then as a military intelligence officer. He was so talented and so obviously marked for big things that he was selected by the Army to attend the University of Virginia Law School. There he demonstrated his great legal mind and talent by his remarkable success in the classroom. He was a member of the Law Review, and then went into the Judge Advocate General Corps. He served with distinction, never serving a Washington billet, but always with the troops in the field, overseas in Germany, but particularly with the Special Operations Command, those warriors who are the tip of the spear for our military forces. Pat returned to West Point as a full colonel to become the head of the Department of Law. There he nurtured a generation of cadets. His success was such that he was the most obvious and the best choice to become the dean of the Military Academy, and he assumed those duties. For the last several years he has led the academic department at West Point with distinction. West Point has been selected by Forbes magazine as the best undergraduate institution in the country. It has been recognized in terms of the scholarships awarded to its students and in terms of the excellence of its academic programs. Pat contributed a lot more than just academic expertise. He and his wife Joan and their children and their grandchildren were a large part of the fabric of the West Point experience. They were there cheering on the cadets at their athletic events. They were there in the good times and the bad times of cadets. They were a source of inspiration and encouragement for class after class at West Point. Pat and Joan have left an indelible mark on the academy. They have done it with great learning and great character, and they have inspired all of us with their dedication to the Army, to the country, and a dedication to each other and to their children. It is with a great deal of pride that I salute BG Patrick Finnegan on his retirement from the U.S. Army and salute him also upon his appointment as president of Longwood University. Longwood will never regret their choice of a distinguished soldier and a great gentleman as their new president. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary Senator--Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Chairman Byrd was the longest serving Senator in the history of this country. He served with extraordinary distinction not only on behalf of the people of West Virginia but on behalf of all of us. The great lesson of his life is that through constant self- improvement, through constant education, not only can one rise to great heights but one can also contribute to one's country and community. Senator Byrd was born in very humble circumstances. At his birth, I do not think anyone would have predicted he would become the longest serving Senator in the history of the United States. In fact, tragically, within a year of his birth, his mother passed away, and he went to live with his father's sister. But in those difficult circumstances in West Virginia, he rose above it through tenacious effort, through hard work. Through his life's path, he had an extraordinary companion, the love of his life--Erma. Together they not only had a family but they built a life of service to others. I know how dear his dear Erma was to Senator Byrd. Their children, Mona, Marjorie, their sons-in-law, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren all at this moment are reflecting on the wonderful person Robert Byrd was, how much he meant to them, and also I hope recognizing how much he meant to all of us. In this very difficult moment, I am sure his memory and his example will sustain them as it sustains all of us. Senator Byrd, from these humble circumstances through hard work in shipyards, in the coal fields of West Virginia, rose up. He rose up because of his incredible talent, not only intellectual talent, but I had the great good fortune once to hear him play the fiddle. Anyone who can play a fiddle like that has great hope of employment, at least in the musical world. But he went beyond that. Again the lesson Senator Byrd teaches us all is constant striving. He was someone who received his law degree while a member of the Congress, the first and perhaps only person to go to law school while he was also serving the people of West Virginia and the Congress. He wrote what is regarded as the foremost history of the Senate, not only this Senate but also the Roman Senate. He did that because he was committed to finding out about history, about life, about human challenges, about great human endeavors, and using that knowledge to help others. He was someone whom we all revered. When I arrived in the Senate, he was gracious and kind and helpful. I can always remember he would greet me as ``my captain.'' He had a deep affection for those who served, even someone as myself who did not serve at the same level of distinction as Dan Inouye, John Kerry, John McCain, and others. He is someone who helped and supported me, and I appreciated very much his kindness. I also appreciate the passion he brought in defense of the Constitution of the United States and the passion he brought to ensure the Senate and the Congress played its rightful role in the deliberations of this government. He would say quite often that he had not served under numerous Presidents; he had served with them as a Senator, in the legislature, a coequal branch of government. He fought not simply for personal prerogatives, he fought for principle, that this government would be based on, as our Founding Fathers' designed it, the interplay between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. His passion for the Constitution was evident and obvious. He also was passionate in the last few years about the foreign policy of the United States. He spoke with eloquence and with passion against our engagement in Iraq. He saw it, as now it is becoming clearer and clearer, as a strategic distraction from the true challenge, which was to defeat our opponents, al-Qaida and their affiliated terrorist groups, and to do that to protect this country. He was a remarkable man, born of humble origin, self-educated, unceasingly educating himself and always seeking to better and improve himself. I would suspect in his last few days he was still striving to learn more. I simply close by thanking him for his service, thanking his family for supporting him in his service, and thanking the people of West Virginia for their wisdom in sending Robert Byrd to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I am proud to be here with Senator Stabenow who is leading this effort to remind all of us of our obligations to the most vulnerable Americans--those who have lost their work in this economic crisis, who are looking desperately for work. They have to maintain their families in this very difficult time. Traditionally, we always offer extended unemployment benefits, but memories are too short around here. Let me take my colleagues back a few years to March of 2002 when the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent and we authorized extended unemployment benefits for 2 years and 1 month. I can't recall any great battles month to month about extending the benefits. I can't recall the ``perils of Pauline'' episodes where, as soon as we finish the 30-day extension, we have to literally begin the debate on the next one because we understand there will be five or six or seven procedural delays built in to prevent us from doing that. Today, we are looking at, in my home State of Rhode Island, 12.3 percent unemployment. That is the official numbers. The unofficial numbers are much higher because the underemployment rate--people who are working part time, working odd jobs just to get by--adds significantly more people to the under- and unemployed rolls. We have never in this country declined to extend unemployment benefits as long as the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent nationally. Today, that rate is about 9.7 percent. We are more than two percentage points above what is traditionally--going back to the Eisenhower administration--the standard of when we can sort of release and dispense with extended unemployment benefits. By any proportion, we are in the midst of a very serious economic crisis. What we have done routinely is extend unemployment benefits. Yet, we have had fierce opposition. Even in those times when we have been able to extend them, it has been after numerous procedural votes. That was not the situation in other administrations--Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, Clinton administration, and the most recent Bush administration. The reason, as my colleague from Vermont so passionately and eloquently pointed out, was we have to get hold of the deficit. Well, we are the people who got hold of the deficit. I can recall being a rather junior Member of the House of Representatives and voting for President Clinton's proposal, with not one Republican vote in the House or the Senate. Yet, that policy, together with the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, resulted several years later in a budget surplus. Then President George Walker Bush walked into Washington with a $236 billion budget surplus. But it weighed heavy. President Bush felt that he had to move that money out as quick as possible through significant tax cuts, which benefited the wealthiest Americans. Part of that tax bill was the estate tax, which has been dispensed with this year--a tax on the books since 1916. All of that dissipated, undercut the surplus, and now we are in a significant deficit. Add the cost of the war in Iraq and other operations, and the cost of the Part D Medicare entitlement program that left many seniors without coverage--unpaid for, but a huge boon to the drug industry--all of that was on their watch. Now, suddenly, they are deficit hawks again. It doesn't ring true to people out there who are desperately looking for work and need something to support them. There is also a very pernicious sort of argument that is made-- sometimes between the lines and sometimes explicitly--that people want to be on unemployment because they are doing much better, and they are inherently lazy and they want to collect that money. In Rhode Island, unemployment benefits are about $360 a week, or about $15,000 a year. That doesn't buy much in terms of gasoline, in terms of food for your family; and it doesn't take care of those bills, such as a health care bill that comes up, or tuition, if you are trying to send your children to school. One of the phenomenons today of this economic crisis is that it is not just affecting young workers entering the workforce, or transient workers, those who have a record of working and being laid off; this is hitting at people in their forties and fifties, who have had good, hard, high-paying jobs, relatively speaking, who have a mortgage and are trying to send children to college. That, unfortunately, is the face too often of unemployment today in the United States. Those people want to live on $360 a week, and they don't want to work? I think that is nonsense. We have to extend unemployment benefits. We always have in the past, and we have to do it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the accomplishments of William A. Richards--a friend, a colleague, and a dedicated public servant. Bill is retiring this month after nearly half a century of service to the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense. I had the privilege of working with Bill as an instructor at West Point. His lengthy career, as a soldier and as a civilian, truly exemplifies the motto of the Academy--``Duty, Honor, Country.'' Bill graduated from West Point in 1967 and served as an infantry officer in Vietnam and Germany. He continued his education at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, receiving a master's degree in public policy. He then returned to West Point to supervise the core curriculum in American Government. Following his return to West Point, Bill was selected for the prestigious position of speechwriter and executive assistant to NATO's Supreme Allied Commander--Europe. His exceptional work in this position resulted in his next assignment as speechwriter to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Bill held this position until his retirement in 1989, after serving for 22 years in uniform. Bill then started a second career as a budget analyst in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, at the Pentagon. His military experience and speechwriting skills enabled him to analyze and translate the complexity of the annual defense budget. After 20 years of serving our Nation in this role, Bill retires as someone who is highly respected for his knowledge, experience, and dedication. I congratulate him on a job well done. He leaves a proud and enduring legacy of public service. I wish Bill and his wife Donna the very best in the years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Today, in the midst of the biggest oil spill in our Nation's history, we are debating a joint resolution, supported by the oil industry, among others, that effectively says that the Senate, with its extensive expertise, believes the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants despite the preponderance of the evidence, scientific evidence, that shows this to be an accurate and correct assessment. The Senate can pass a resolution saying practically anything, but it does not change reality. The fact is, the best science tells us that climate change is real and that greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to it. It is also true that our continuing reliance on fossil fuel undermines not only our environmental quality but our national and economic security. We have seen the environmental effects played out dramatically and catastrophically in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP disaster. But if we do nothing, we will continue to see our economy held hostage by our need for fossil fuels and the billions of dollars a year we send overseas to buy oil. We will see our national security imperiled by our over-reliance on these fossil fuels and our continuing inability to take effective, measured action based on science to control these greenhouse gases. This resolution is more than just our opinion; it would effectively and permanently block the EPA from taking concrete steps today to deal with this problem. For example, it would prevent the EPA from collaborating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on new vehicle efficiency and emission standards. These are commonsense, doable achievements, and, in fact, we are seeing even the automobile industry support this. It is estimated that if the EPA and the highway traffic safety administration move forward, they could save consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicles. Think of that. If we were talking about a $3,000 tax rebate to Americans, everybody would be jumping up and down saying that is great. By improving the efficiency of automobiles and doing it in a thoughtful way, we can provide consumers, families, over the lifetime of a vehicle--several years--$3,000 in benefits rather than shipping that $3,000 overseas to buy petroleum. That is a pretty good deal. This resolution would effectively prevent that. The proponents of the resolution say: Congress has to act on this. That is true, but I would be more encouraged with that line of argument if it were matched by effective action to deal with the serious problems that face this country today. Indeed, we have spent months and weeks laboring over the extension of unemployment benefits. Every significant bill that has come to this floor has been filibustered time and time again. To suggest disingenuously that we will pass this resolution and get on to a climate change bill, pass it within several weeks or months is, I think, not borne out by the evidence of what we have seen in this Chamber over the last several months. We have to move forward. As I said, this is not only an economic issue. It is a national security issue. The Quadrennial Defense Review in February 2010 noted--this is the review that is done periodically to assess the strategic position of the United States: Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. In effect, what this review suggested is that it is very likely climate change will be an accelerant of instability. At this moment in time, the last thing we need is to accelerate instability in the world. One of the challenges we face is that this is not the Cold War where we are facing a monolithic Soviet Union and its allies in a strategic conflict that can be managed through deterrence. This is a situation where our greatest danger today is in unstable parts of the world, and that instability is going to be accelerated if we do not take steps. This is not just an issue of the economy, environmental rules, whether Congress should act or the agencies act. This is whether we are going to deal with the forces that are causing turmoil and instability in the world. For these reasons and many others, I urge rejection of this resolution. I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, in March my State was hit with back-to-back historic floods that caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Rhode Island. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, and my colleagues on the committee especially, who have recognized the needs of Rhode Island in the appropriations bill we recently completed. We are struggling to overcome the effects of the worst flooding in centuries in the midst of the worst economic environment we have seen since the 1930s. Indeed, Rhode Island was among the first States to sink into this latest recession. In the last 2 years, Rhode Island has consistently ranked among the top three States in unemployment, with as many as 12.7 percent of our workforce without jobs. By the latest estimates, 12.5 percent of the State is out of work, and this is not including all of the jobs that have been lost in the flooding. Our major commercial mall in Warwick, RI, has been closed since March. Hundreds, perhaps even 1,000 or more jobs, have been lost. They are rapidly trying to reopen this facility under the incredible leadership of the owner, Aram Garabedian, but to date they have opened one store. Soon they hope to open another. For those hundreds of people, they have lost their jobs and are waiting to go back to work. The reach of the flood was widespread, covering every county of the State. In the space of 2 weeks, separate rainstorms caused four rivers--the Blackstone, Pawtuxet, the Pawcatuck, and the Pocasset--to go above flood stage. Interstate 95, the major north-south route in the Northeast of this country, was closed for 2 days. It has never been closed for that length of time. The last time I can recall it being closed was in 1978 during a huge blizzard which shut down traffic for about a day or so. President Obama and FEMA issued major disaster declarations for the entire State, and I thank the President. He moved very quickly and very aggressively. I also thank FEMA. They dispatched immediately their deputy for disaster operations. They had on the ground within, it seemed, hours, key personnel. I particularly want to recognize Gracia Szczech, an incredible woman who, in fact, frankly, left Rhode Island to be sent down to the next great flood in Tennessee. Senator Alexander and Senator Corker have spoken about their problems. I thank both the President and FEMA for the incredible response. But what you find in a flood like this--all of my colleagues have been subject to them and, frankly, this is a phenomenon that is usually found in other parts of the country--but what you find in floods is that the water recedes, the Sun comes out, but the damage and devastation remains. We have about 2,000 households that are still not able to live in their homes. This is something that has caused a tremendous shock to our economy and to our workforce and to the people of Rhode Island. After 2 months, homeowners and businesses in much of the State are still struggling with these effects. The flooding caused job losses in a number of sectors; 1,800 jobs were lost in the food services and accommodation sector alone. I mentioned the Warwick Mall. Approximately 1,100 people have lost their jobs because of the shutdown of that commercial center. Health, education, manufacturing, construction, transportation, art and recreation--all of these sectors have experienced significant job losses. As my colleagues know, Rhode Island has been fortunate for many decades to have avoided this kind of natural disaster, particularly from flooding. The last major natural disaster of the State was Hurricane Bob in 1991. It roared up and hit our State, like other parts of the Northeast, and we suffered significant damage. Since that time we have been rather fortunate, but our fortune ran out with these floods this spring. There has been no question about the support of people of Rhode Island or my colleagues in our State's congressional delegation when this type of disaster hits elsewhere. Midwest flooding, Katrina in Louisiana and along the gulf coast--we are there because we know, No. 1, Americans, our neighbors, are suffering, and that is when we all have to pull together and help them. We also know, too, and expect that when it happens in our home States that same spirit of pulling together, of helping out, of getting people back in their homes and opening up businesses would be something we would experience and we would see too. I am grateful, again, in the midst of this challenging fiscal environment, the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis has included assistance for Rhode Island and for Tennessee. They have responded, as they have so many times before, to the needs of people who have lost homes, lost jobs. One thing they do not want them to lose is hope. So they stepped forward to provide the resources necessary to begin the difficult task of rebuilding. I thank again Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, gentlemen of extraordinary kindness but extraordinary faithfulness to the core values of this country. One of the basic values is, when difficult times affect people in this country, we are not going to look away, we are going to try to help them. They have done it again for Rhode Island and Tennessee. We still have a long way to go for recovery. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and other members of the committee as we go forward. But their efforts will provide meaningful and material support to the people of Rhode Island. I thank them very much. Extending Unemployment Insurance This is a moment also, as we reflect upon the damage caused by the flood, to once again underscore the damage that has been caused for now several years by an economy that has lost millions of jobs. Few States, have felt the impact of this job loss more severely than Rhode Island. If we fail to act on unemployment compensation before June 2--and I am so disappointed that it seems quite obvious that we will not act--we are going to once again put thousands of Rhode Islanders and millions of Americans who are looking for work and cannot find it, in jeopardy of not being able to receive unemployment compensation. All of the economic arguments about unemployment compensation are obvious but bear repeating. This is one of those programs that for every dollar we invest we get significantly more in terms of economic activity in the country. So it is part of our recovery package as well as part of keeping faith with people who have worked hard, paid their dues, literally, and now are looking for the benefits of this program. In March, the Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, with six of my Republican colleagues, an extension of unemployment benefits as part of an early extenders package to the end of the year, 62 to 36. The unemployment extension, as it was then and has been in the past, was unpaid for. It was deemed emergency spending. I find it ironic and interesting that we can deem billions of dollars as an emergency to support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and, frankly, part of that support is not simply to buy ammunition and fuel products and HUMVEES for American troops, it is to give our commanders CERP money so they can go into the communities of Iraq and Afghanistan and put people to work because of their unemployment problems. It is very difficult to go back to Rhode Island and tell them it is an emergency to put people in Kabul to work, put people in Kandahar to work, put people in Basra and Baghdad to work, but it is not an emergency to put people to work in Boise, not an emergency to put people to work in Keokuk, IA. And, certainly, in places such as Providence, Cranston, Central Falls, Woonsocket, all through my State. It is truly unfortunate that we are now, at this juncture, in a position where these benefits for which a long-term extension has been passed separately in both the Senate and the House will lapse. That is regrettable, to say the least; in fact, it is deplorable. I am optimistic that when we come back after this Memorial Day recess, we will craft an extension. I am afraid it is going to be a short-term extension. I am also afraid, once again, millions of Americans are going to be living month to month with an ocean of, I have benefits, but how long can I keep them? That uncertainty is unacceptable. We can do better. We have done it individually by extending benefits at least to the end of this year. We have to do that. If we do not extend them at least for a short period, millions of unemployed workers will lose benefits throughout the country, including 2,000 in Rhode Island. Since last year's passage of the Recovery Act, I would point out, there have been eight filibusters of legislation to extend unemployment benefits. I think the people in this country who need help and not just pointless debate are those who are out of work, looking for it, and needing the support of unemployment compensation. We have allowed it to lapse twice this year. Weeks have gone by, as they will go by, unfortunately, in the next few weeks, where there is uncertainty and doubt about payments being maintained. I think it is outrageous that having my colleagues on the other side repeatedly approve budgets sent by President Bush that were unpaid for, not even an attempt to pay for them, that provided tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens, that conducted two major military conflicts without paying for them, suddenly feel they have got to pay for unemployment benefits for workers in America. We have to be focused on this deficit. That is correct. Let me remind my colleagues, we did focus on the deficit. In the 1990s when I was a Member of the House, we focused on it to the extent that we reversed the deficit and created a surplus. Critical votes under President Clinton without any Republican support. When push comes to shove, when it is not about the rhetoric but it is about standing up and doing tough things to eliminate a deficit, many of my colleagues on the other side are missing in action. We can and we must reverse this deficit. It will take difficult votes, not rhetoric alone. But at this juncture to once again engage in rhetorical debate rather than actively helping our countrymen and our constituents is missing the point. I think we have to go forward. I think we must go forward to provide these short-term benefits, and to do it in a way that is consistent with our history and our values. When times are tough, yes, we have always talked about the deficit and everything else, but we have reached out and helped our citizens who need this kind of help. Congress has never ended emergency unemployment benefits until unemployment has declined to at least 7.4 percent in this Nation. In Rhode Island it is 12.5 percent. We have got a long way to go before we get to the point where we can talk about a self-correcting economy. If you look at our history through every administration, Republicans and Democrats, when we had unemployment at this level affecting so many Americans, affecting not just their wallets but their future and their hopes for a future, we have extended, almost automatically, emergency unemployment benefits. The rate today is 9.9 percent nationally, and again, 12.5 percent in Rhode Island. We have a long way to go before we can start talking about this unemployment crisis as something of the past. We need to extend unemployment benefits at least through the end of this year. We have got to do it because we need to help people and give them the certainty of that help. We have to move. We have to act. It is going to be something we will do. I think we should do it now. I think we should put aside the posturing and extend benefits and then get on to the difficult work, not just the easy talk, but the difficult work of deficit reduction. I have done that work. I have listened to complaints in campaigns repeatedly about tough votes we took in the 1990s. But because we took those tough votes, by 2000 we had an economy that was producing jobs, not losing them; we had a budget that was in surplus, not in deficit; we had the wherewithal to make investments in education, in energy, and in health care that would make us even more productive and more successful and more equitable in terms of the benefits to this country. But many of the same people who now are talking about deficits sort of cavalierly said, let's cut taxes for the rich. Let's engage in a military operation that is not paid for. So from 2000 to 2008, the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, opportunities narrowed, unemployment grew. I do not think that is a coincidence. Let's get back to business. Let's first give people who need unemployment benefits those benefits. And let's take those tough steps--and they will not be easy--to reduce the deficit. Do not use the deficit as an excuse to break faith with the American public. One article of faith is when we have unemployment levels of 10 percent nationally, we have never failed to extend, in a routine fashion, emergency unemployment compensation. We have got a lot of work to do when we get back. I am sorely disappointed we could not conclude this work before we left. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank also my colleagues for their assistance and look forward to working with them to secure passage of this important bill. amendment no. 4251, as modified

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes from Senator Levin's time or Senator Inouye's time.

Mr. REED. Madam President, this legislation clearly calls for a report to be submitted by the President of the United States to establish a timetable, and I think the suggestion that will not have incredible consequences in the real world is somewhat naive. If the President of the United States is forced to give Congress a timetable stating dates, even if those dates have some variables attached to them, that sets in motion a train of events that is anything but a simple statement of vision. That statement of vision was given by the President at West Point. In fact, he was criticized for specifically indicating that there would be a point at which American forces begin the withdrawal, but he did that. I think anyone questioning the President's not only willingness to do this, but understanding the need to redeploy our forces, should look at today's headlines in the Washington Post where the Vice President has, once again, reiterated that we are coming out of Iraq; that the timetables the President talked about, the vision he talked about, all of those things he is following through on, and he will do the same thing in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the President's strategy is clear: to provide military resources to reseize the momentum; to provide the opportunity to build civilian capacity; and starting, as the Senator from Wisconsin indicated, at a fixed date will begin a drawdown and will begin changing our mission from combat operations to more counterterrorism operations, more training of Afghani forces. Frankly, what I think the President--and I will presume to speak at this moment, at last in my view--sees in the future is a significant drawdown of our military presence while we build up our civilian presence. That civilian presence might include some trainers, police trainers. It might include a lot of folks. Indeed, this vision is tied directly to the concern we all have. There are active al-Qaida cells in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, and one of the advantages of a presence in Afghanistan is effectively cooperating with and encouraging the Pakistanis. I urge rejection of the amendment.