Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. I know Lael personally. She is a renowned expert in international economics, a dedicated public servant, and is highly qualified for this important position. I had the privilege of working with her when she was a member of the Clinton administration as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economics. Then she went on to be a vice president and founding director of the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program and then an associate professor of applied economics at MIT's Sloan School. She has extraordinary credentials and experience, but she is also, in addition to that, someone who has a wide ranging interest in international economics, international affairs, and international security policy. She is someone I have known for many years, someone I respect immensely for her judgment, her maturity, and her dedication to not only the country but also to ensuring that our policy reflects our highest ideals, as well as advances our cause around the world. She has been nominated for a very critical position. International economics is no longer a secondary concern. It is of primary concern, if it ever was a secondary concern. We are now approaching a time when our relationships with the world's economies are no longer one of the strong versus the many smaller economies. We are in a very competitive global economy, and we need this type of representation in the Department of the Treasury. We have to engage China, and no one is more thoughtful and better prepared to do that than Lael. We have to stabilize this economy through this financial crisis which we are seeing not just in terms of private markets but the situation in Greece, the issues of sovereign debt. All of these cry out for an individual in the Department of Treasury who is not only well versed but also in place to do the work. Again, I can find no higher qualified candidate than Lael. We have to expand export opportunities. The President has rightly called upon this country not only to begin to grow again but to direct our growth away from domestic consumption to export. We need someone in the international arena fighting for us, the United States. We need an individual who is responsible and accountable for that effort. Again, I cannot think of a more experienced, more dedicated, and more qualified individual than Lael. We have been waiting, the Department of Treasury has been waiting, Lael Brainard has been waiting, since December 2009 for confirmation. That is a long time to put a high priority issue on the back burner. What is ironic is it appears no one is challenging her experience, her credentials, her demeanor, her temperament--anything. She is collateral damage, if you will, in another dispute which is not one of the most significant and commendable parts of the process here. We all have issues with individual candidates, but after those issues are well ventilated and since December 2009--that is a long time--we have to take it to a vote up or down. I urge that her nomination move forward this evening. She is extraordinarily qualified, and she is someone who can take on the extraordinary challenges of this job. Frankly, right now we have wasted months and months through this process where we could have had the very best person available focus on the international competitiveness of the United States, and I think our constituents demand it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here to move forward on extending unemployment benefits, which is long overdue. They expired April 5. We have thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens across the Nation who need this assistance. In my State of Rhode Island, it has become even more necessary. Not only are we seeing unemployment rates ranging around 12 percent, but last week we endured the worst flooding in the history of our State. It has swept through a large portion of our State. Senator Whitehouse and I have been going from town to town and neighborhood to neighborhood. People's homes have been engulfed in water, up through the first floor. They have lost their utilities. They have lost their appliances. They have lost their precious mementoes--everything. We have also had commercial operations that have been flooded. Our largest mall in the State, Warwick Mall, has been completely inundated. It has been closed now for almost 2 weeks. Literally hundreds and hundreds of employees have not been able to work. They are now eligible, through no fault of their own, for unemployment compensation. So we have to do this. This is an example of one State, but it is throughout this whole country. What is also adding further necessity to the legislation before us is that--what we have found is that our Federal, State, and local officials have been extraordinarily prompt in responding to the disaster. I thank the President. He very quickly issued a Presidential disaster declaration for Rhode Island and parts of Massachusetts, as well as other areas of New England. FEMA has been on the ground. They are doing a very good job. But for someone who has lost their home and all of their possessions, someone who also may have lost their business simultaneously, every moment is precious. Despite the extraordinary efforts of the men and women of FEMA, the Small Business Administration, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, State officials, and local officials, we have to do much more for these people. One of the ironies is that--one of the benefits of the Small Business Administration is essentially providing loans to households and to businesses; however, they are limited unless these businesses can get flood insurance. Private flood insurance is out of sight financially. Public flood insurance has been without authorization. In this legislation, we will have a temporary extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. Let me translate that into practical terms. SBA in Rhode Island could go to a business and say: You have had physical damage. We can lend up to $2 million to you. Unfortunately, because you can't get flood insurance, we are limited to giving you $14,000. When you offer that to someone who is desperate, who is seeing hundreds of employees without work, who is trying their best--in fact, even the idea of taking another loan is a very great leap forward. To say: You need $100,000 or $500,000; we can give it to you, but--it is the classic catch-22. In this legislation, we can extend this program, even for several weeks, but allow individuals in these affected areas to qualify for what they need. In terms of home loans, the limit is not that high, but it could be up around $40,000 for personal property and $200,000 for real estate. I have been in homes where the damage is excessive. Yesterday, I walked into a home in Cranston, RI, and a father and his two grown sons were ripping up the tiles. The whole first floor has to be gutted and replaced. They may just try to do it on their own, they may try to seek bank lending, but it would be nice if they could get the full support of the Federal Government, as we intended when we passed the SBA laws and disaster relief laws. In terms of economic injury, if there is a business that has lost all of its inventory, that has to close, that has just lost business because of the flood, they, too, can qualify for loans--and again, the total is up to $2 million. However, without flood insurance, the cap is $5,000. So going to someone who has lost all of this and saying to them: Well, let me explain the intricacies. You can get this, but you can't get this. If Congress acts, you can get this. We have to do much more for our citizens. If these programs are available, we have to make them truly available. One of the consequences, frankly, of this political jousting back and forth is we lose sight of the effect on our constituents, the effect on real people and real problems. As a result, they are looking at us here and saying: What is going on? You have authorized the program. You have the money to loan me up to $2 million, but you can't because you can't authorize another program. We might understand that procedurally. We might understand the delays we see here, et cetera. But the American public doesn't understand it. They have a problem; they expect their government to respond, particularly when the programs are already authorized, when the programs are there, and we have done it in the past. I would hazard a guess that every Member in this Chamber has used--or their constituents have used Federal flood relief programs, agriculture relief programs. I supported every one of them because when Americans are facing a natural disaster, they need all of us to rally behind them and support them. Well, now is the time in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We need that support. For people to oppose it--oh, we object to this or that--that is not what we are called upon to do. We have people who are desperate because of a natural disaster. We need unemployment compensation for those people and for the thousands who are still looking without success for jobs, and we also need it to assure the people that their welfare is our goal. That is what we do. We can sort out the nuances of conflicting programs and conditions, et cetera, so that they get the help they need. So I hope we can move through this motion to proceed and get on to a serious debate. I personally believe we have to extend unemployment compensation through the end of the year. This ``Perils of Pauline'' every 30 days leaves people to wondering what is happening to them. I was in a diner yesterday in Rhode Island, and a woman stopped me and said: When are you going to extend unemployment insurance? I don't know if I am going to get it. I am running out of resources. This is a woman who has worked all of her life. In fact, she told me she had been laid off once before because she didn't have the training, and then she went and got education through a Federal program, moved into administration, and was just let go by her company because of the downsizing. She played by the rules, she has done everything asked of her as a citizen, and she is just waiting there. We have to do more. So I hope the logic of our constituents might overwhelm the logic of this Chamber at the moment. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow. We are here to attempt to extend unemployment benefits for a brief period of time so Americans do not get caught up in the expiration of these benefits on April 5. This has been a repeated struggle. We have had many incidents over the last several months where we have had to come down here and, at the last moment, attempt to project these benefits further. I hope we do not fail again today. In 2009, when President Obama walked into office, we were losing 700,000 jobs per month. This is a crisis of epic proportions, rivaling, in some respect, in some regions of the country, the Great Depression. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a 12.7-percent unemployment rate, and it has been persistent now for almost 2 years. We are seeing an unfortunate record of long-term unemployment. We have to help our colleagues, our neighbors, our friends, and we have to do it in a way that does not deny them the basic necessities to hang on in a difficult economy. But this situation is not just as a result of the last several months or the last several years. If you look back across the past decade-- from 2000 to 2010--it has been an extraordinarily unproductive one for working Americans. There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. We have had no decade since the 1940s where job growth was less than 20 percent. This is the culmination of a decade in which people could not find the kind of work they typically found in America. We saw middle-income households' earning power decline. They were making less in 2008 than they were in 1999. Two-thirds of the Nation's total income from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent. So middle-income families have been losing out persistently, and now they have hit the skids because so many of them now are seeing their jobs go, seeing their house threatened with foreclosure, seeing the dream of sending their children to college evaporate. At least the minimum we can do is provide the kind of assistance they need. We routinely, when there is a natural disaster, provide assistance. In the last 20 years, an estimated $336 billion in disaster assistance and $61.8 billion in agricultural assistance has flowed to the States. This is a disaster in the same respect. It is a disaster to individual families who have lost their employment. The irony here is, if a flood had washed through a State in the Union and destroyed the work of 12 percent of the population, we would be here with disaster relief to get the funds to give loans, to give support, et cetera. Well, this is a disaster. We must move. In that respect, seeing my time is coming to a close, the time I have----

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's objection. Additionally, I appreciate his consideration in allowing me to speak. Let me conclude. We have a huge debt at the moment. I think if you look at the major contributing factors of that debt, they would include tax cuts that were unpaid for, supported strongly by the Republicans, which went dramatically to the richest Americans, and two wars that have been unpaid for. In fact, I think in a few weeks we are going to have to consider another supplemental Defense budget which at this point I do not believe is paid for and which I do not feel will engender any objection by the Republican side. It will include, given the nature of counterinsurgency operations, monies that will be used, ironically, to help develop productive jobs and build clinics and do things our soldiers must do to secure the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet at the same time we can't find that kind of money here without on offset to help Americans. So there is a question of priorities. There is a question of the deficit. Again, repeating something my colleague said, I too recall when we had a surplus. That was under the leadership of President Clinton. There were tough votes by my colleagues and myself. That surplus has dissipated. We are now in a severe situation with the deficit. The compelling priorities of Americans who need to work and can't find it yet are extremely persuasive and should be responded to by the success of the bill. I again thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He is extraordinarily kind. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Let me take 1 or 2 more minutes. That is extremely thoughtful. I thank the Senator. We have an opportunity to act today, and we should. The proposal is to go ahead and to extend through the next several days the existing benefits so we have time to come back. We have already sent to the House an extension of unemployment benefits that will carry through to the end of this calendar year. It also includes FMAP provisions, which are extremely important to States. I think in the spirit of letting us continue to support these Americans while we debate and finally conclude, I hope successfully, a longer term solution is the best thing to do. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4501 My colleague Senator Stabenow an hour ago propounded a unanimous consent request, only to receive an objection. I will once again ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 323, H.R. 4501, to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, even though we have made an extraordinary advance in health care reform, we still have millions of Americans who are without jobs and in need of unemployment insurance. We are in a situation that requires action. Early this month, we were able to pass a 30-day extension by a vote of 78 to 19. It was overwhelmingly adopted, but it was not quickly adopted because of the delay and the procedures imposed upon the process. We might in this Chamber understand the nuances of rules and procedures, but for the people who have been without work for up to a year or more, the nuances escape them. They need help. The reality is, on April 5 this extension will expire. We will not be in session, so we are here today to continue the work that we must do as Members of this Senate. We have already passed in this body a year-long extension along with some other tax provisions--again, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus. That provision is over in the House, and it is unlikely to move today or tomorrow. The House sent us a provision for another 1-month extension. That is bottled up. But, again, all of these legislative initiatives do not put the check in the mail for those who are without work. That is what we have to do. We have to pass another extension, at least to get us from April into next month and beyond. Of course, I think the year-long extension until the end of this calendar year is the right approach. It has already been adopted, and I hope we can return and embrace that proposal. If we do not move, at a minimum, for a temporary extension, approximately 1,200 Rhode Islanders will start losing their benefits each week starting April 5. By the end of April, three-quarters of 1 million unemployed workers across the Nation will lose their benefits. This is at a moment when we are beginning to see some economic traction, some reports of progress in labor markets. Just today it was reported that initial unemployment claims fell by 14,000--a number much larger than the experts expected. Now we are in a very difficult moment when we look at the good news being that ``the claims fell.'' But that is a prelude to the point we have to achieve: when not only the claims fall but the jobs start growing and growing and growing. We have come a long ways since President Obama took office: 700,000 people a month who were losing their job--with huge, catastrophic, ramifications throughout the economy. That is beginning to turn around. But until we are back to a robust employment situation, we cannot ignore people who need help through the unemployment compensation system. I believe the major point at this juncture between the two sides is the issue of how do we pay for this, its cost. We have adopted, as Democrats, what was ignored and then dismissed by Republicans, which is the concept of pay-go, of paying for government activities either by revenue increases or by offsetting reductions. But we have always understood that in emergencies these pay-go rules properly can be suspended; that we can go ahead and deal with an emergency. Frankly, this situation we are in today, that is triggering all this concern--and rightfully so--of the deficit is not something that was created by President Obama. He walked in with a $1.3 trillion deficit-- in sharp contrast to President George W. Bush, who walked into office with a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years. That was not the result of just the economy humming along, that was the result of very difficult choices that were made in this body and in the House of Representatives under the leadership of President Clinton and, once again, under the leadership of my colleagues such as Max Baucus. But that surplus, that opportunity of a robust employment picture where unemployment was around 5 percent, that was the legacy of President Clinton. Frankly, the legacy of President Bush is significant deficits and significant unemployment and financial crisis. More debt was added in that administration--$3 trillion--than all previous administrations combined, from George Washington all the way up to George W. Bush. So this deficit is a real problem. But a lot of it was the result of decisions that were made by that administration to finance activities not through pay-go but through just piling it on the deficit. Tax cuts were not paid for, and the tax cuts were skewed in the nature of a progressive tax to the wealthiest. Iraq, Afghanistan--none of those wars were paid for through offsets or anything else. The prescription drug program, Part D, was not paid for. It was, again, added to the tab of future generations. It is interesting, today we have actually tried to fix that with the passage of the health care bill by closing the doughnut hole. So at this moment, when we face a true employment emergency, when people say: Well, we are now going to insist upon complete offsets, it misses what was done casually and repeatedly during the Bush administration for areas that you could argue were not true emergencies. Now we face a critical emergency. In my State of Rhode Island, we have a 12.7 percent unemployment rate. If we do not start supporting and turning that around, it will get worse rather than better. We have never in recent history--going over several decades-- ever suspended emergency unemployment benefits when the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent or higher. We are at nearly 10 percent unemployment nationally, and in some States--again, in Rhode Island, it is close to 13 percent. Until we lower joblessness significantly, we are still in an employment emergency. The other aspect of this, too, is unemployment compensation is one of the major activities for stimulating the economy. The bang for the buck is significant. There is $1.90 of economic activity for every $1 invested in unemployment insurance. It makes sense. People need the money to go to the store to buy food for their children. They need to pay for the gas to look for a job. That money will come in and be multiplied in the economy. The irony, too, of trying to use, in some respects, the stimulus money to pay for the unemployment is it is basically taking away money we have designed to get the economy moving and spending it for a program that will also help the economy move. But you are going to get a lot less bang for the buck in terms of decreasing our overall commitment to that economic activity in the country. So we have to move. I would urge an immediate extension of the unemployment compensation legislation to give us a chance to return and work with our colleagues in the House for the legislation that will at least guarantee an unemployment extension until the end of this calendar year. But we have to move. We have to act. We should do so now. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I had the great privilege of observing Senator Dodd as he stepped into the breach for Senator Kennedy and did an extraordinary job--hour after hour after hour--listening to the comments, the suggestions of both sides of the aisle. I think about 400 amendments were filed, and 161, or so, were accepted. In that process, his leadership was extraordinarily effective and critical. So the praise he rightfully accords to others he must share in a major way. We would not be here today if Senator Dodd had not stepped in while simultaneously also doing financial reform and getting us to this moment. So I say to the Senator, thank you. I concur, obviously, with his comments about Senator Baucus and express the respect I have for Senator Baucus. As chairman of the Finance Committee, Max had an extraordinarily important role to play, and he played it with great wisdom and great judgment throughout. Again, we are here today because of these two gentlemen, and my colleagues in the House. I, too, commend the President. It would have been easy at any time in this process to fold up the book and say: Well, I have joined the ranks of all my predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt. I have tried and have not succeeded. I think at moments he might have come tantalizingly close to that conclusion. But he pressed on. Ultimately, it was his decision more than anyone else to try to do this that got it done. As Thucydides said: The bravest of the brave are those who, seeing both the glory and the danger, go forth to seize it. These gentlemen-- particularly the President--saw the danger and the glory and refused to retreat and went forward. We have a historic victory today. But our work is not done.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 5, the extension that was recently voted for extended unemployment compensation benefits will expire. We need to at least provide for a temporary extension while we await the resolution of a much broader piece of legislation that is in the House today which would provide for an extension of unemployment benefits from today until the end of the calendar year, as well as FMAP payments to the States and other provisions. This is absolutely critical. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have basically a 13-percent unemployment rate--12.7 percent. We have a record number of long-term unemployed people. This is not a situation, as in the past, where there was a temporary labor crisis. This has been going on in Rhode Island for almost 2 years or more, and people have reached the end of their resources and the end of their patience. For many, the only thing that is sustaining them--and not particularly well--is the fact they are still getting some unemployment benefits. So we have to move very aggressively to provide a solution. We have never, in the last several decades--reaching back at least as far as the 1980s--denied extended unemployment benefits as long as the unemployment rate nationally was at least 7.4 percent. It is 10 percent, and in many States it is higher than that--Rhode Island being one of those States. So this would break tradition in terms of disrupting, interrupting, preventing extended benefits at a time when we have 10 percent unemployment. We have persistently seen this, accurately and realistically, as an emergency--an emergency that allows us to provide funding without offsets. That is something that I think still is compelling. This is an emergency. Perhaps one of the ironies that will take place on this floor in the next several weeks is that we will call up a supplemental budget from the Department of Defense which, as I understand, will not be offset totally. One of the ironies is that we will be providing benefits--because part of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq is civic engagement--we will be providing employment opportunities and investment in infrastructure for Afghans and Iraqis without offset, which is my understanding at the moment. The irony, of course, is that for our own citizens we are claiming: No, we can't do that. The other side has accumulated, under the Bush administration, a huge debt. In fact, in the term of the Bush administration, the national debt grew astronomically. Part of it was because repeatedly the Republican side refused to provide offsets to the funding for the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and Medicare Part D, which was an entitlement payment for seniors in terms of their drug prescriptions. They thought that paying for things was an undue constraint on their plans. But now that we are in a crisis that affects Americans, there is the insistence during this emergency of paying for it, which contradicts practice and contradicts the real needs out there. One final point. We are now beginning to see some very limited progress on the employment front. This week's report about jobs caused a very positive reaction in the marketplace because the number of first-time claimants for unemployment compensation dropped much further than they thought. That suggests we are beginning to bottom out. There are other reports that suggest we will see some job growth beginning. That is because of the stimulus efforts we have undertaken today and in the past. Part of that stimulus effort has been unemployment compensation insurance. For every dollar we invest in unemployment compensation, there is $1.90 growth in economic activity. That is the result of studies over many years. So when we don't invest in these types of programs, we are not only denying sustenance to many families, we are also not providing the kind of economic stimulus that the country needs to move forward. So for all those reasons and more, I hope we can move, in the course of this evening or tomorrow, to adopt a measure that will allow us to continue the funding for unemployment compensation. With that, I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. First, I wish to begin by recognizing the extraordinary leadership of majority leader Harry Reid, Chairman Baucus, Chairman Dodd, and Chairman Harkin to get us to this point. Commonsense and cost-effective health care reform is now the law of the land. The question before the Senate now is whether we will make some important improvements to that reform or whether we will respond to the wishes of the insurance industry and others who want to preserve a broken status quo of higher premiums and dwindling coverage for middle-class families. Yesterday, President Obama signed into law a health insurance reform bill that will cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years, ensure that health insurance companies actually provide Americans with the coverage that they pay for, and preserve Medicare for our senior citizens. That is no small achievement, and it would be a tragedy if the other side of the aisle persists in its effort to defeat health care reform by seeking to delay and up-end the package of improvements in the bill that we are now debating. It sometimes gets lost in the heated rhetoric of the other side, but under the status quo, the healthy are faced with ever-increasing costs and the ill are denied care, dropped from coverage, and prevented from purchasing coverage. The new health insurance reforms will provide relief for every American. Indeed, under the law just signed by President Obama, these five reforms will take place by the fall of next year: No child will be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Small businesses will receive a 35-percent tax credit to purchase insurance for their employees. Seniors on Medicare who confront the doughnut hole will receive additional assistance. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services, with less going to administrative costs and profits, or else they must pay a rebate to policy holders. And our State's Community Health Centers will receive a boost in Federal resources. Rhode Islanders will particularly welcome this relief. Just last week, Rhode Islanders learned that health insurance premiums in the State will go up 10 percent this year. In the same week, they also received news that as many as 21 percent of individuals in the State will be without insurance sometime during this year. This is double the rate of uninsured just 10 years ago. In Rhode Island, these two headlines, coupled with an unemployment rate of nearly 13 percent, have caused a perfect storm. As the economy took jobs away from Rhode Islanders, it also took away their health insurance. The healthy hoped not to get sick, the sick started showing up in hospital emergency rooms, and those who still had access to insurance stopped being able to afford it. Hospitals in Rhode Island can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured. Community health centers in Rhode Island can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured. Indeed, the economy can no longer shoulder the burden of the uninsured. Today we are considering a bill that makes further improvements to the health insurance reform law. Indeed, these are changes that Americans have consistently said they want, and that is why we should support this bill. It is also why I intend to oppose the legislative maneuvers from the other side of the aisle. They are interested in overturning the reform of our health care system, reforms which have replaced the costly status quo with a system based on more competitive markets. They are in favor of a system where the whim of insurance companies rule. They are in favor of a health care system in which costs continue to rise at astronomical rates each year for families and for businesses. It may be politically heartening for the other side to try and slow down reform through a series of repetitive amendments, but I think Rhode Islanders and all Americans want us to pass the bill because it contains straightforward proposals. First, this reconciliation bill, as it is known, would eliminate the so-called Corn-Husker kickback, which would have created an entirely inappropriate Medicaid reimbursement system exclusively for one State. Gone too are other provisions that would have unfairly supported some States and not others. Second, this bill begins the process of closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole, which requires seniors to pay more for their medications than they ordinarily would. This year seniors would receive $250 when they enter the doughnut hole and pay less for drugs they purchase once they enter this coverage gap. Third, at a time when so many of us are worried about government spending, this bill does more to reduce the budget deficit so that we can save up to $1.3 trillion in the next two decades. Those are real savings. I find it ironic that some on the other side oppose them. Fourth, the bill makes sure the so-called Cadillac tax, which was intended to affect the most expensive health care plans, is reduced by 80 percent so that it hits its intended targets, not middle-class families. Fifth, the bill recognizes that we should do even more to help struggling families afford health insurance, and so it provides new tax breaks to help make coverage more affordable. As I said, in the next few days my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are expected to file and attempt to offer numerous amendments to this bill. These are tactics that are purely dilatory. That is, again, another reason I will oppose the amendments. Some of these amendments may seem as though they are common sense, but each one is designed for the purpose of derailing this legislation, of sending it back to the House, of undercutting the most significant reform of health care in the last several decades. But there is another aspect to this legislation which is vitally important; that is, the improvement to the student support system for higher education. It is the dream of every parent that their child will have a better life, and a big part of that dream is that they will have the opportunity to go on to college or even an advanced degree. This bill ends the student aid system that gives away billions of Federal subsidies to private banks, including some that helped create the 2008 financial meltdown, and instead puts those taxpayer dollars directly into the hands of students to pay for their education. During this economic downturn, paying for college has become all the more difficult for many families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. Like health care, one of the top concerns of families as they sit around their kitchen tables during these difficult times is how they will pay for their child's education. The key to ensuring our Nation's economic stability and progress is also providing access to education. It is the engine that moves people forward. It is what expands our capacity and our capabilities in a complex world. Now we have the opportunity so that we can, in fact, provide additional assistance through Pell grants, and we can do it by saving money from bank subsidies and reinvesting that in Pell grants. Approximately $42 billion will be freed up; over $35 billion will be committed to Pell grants. It will be expanded to additional recipients, and the maximum grant will increase to nearly $6,000. We will also provide in Rhode Island $7.5 million for information so that families and students can locate the best arrangements for their college education, for their financial aid. It will also invest $2 billion in community colleges, which have become a central part of our educational system, particularly for those people who are transitioning into the workforce or through the workforce. One final point: It is particularly fitting that we are investing in the Pell grant, named after my predecessor Senator Claiborne Pell. His vision to give people the opportunity to higher education and then to stand back and watch them do great things has been legitimized and vindicated over 30 years. I don't think Senator Pell foresaw the Internet. I don't know how much he used it even when it arrived. But he knew if we gave people the skills and talents, they would do great things. They have done great things. With this legislation, they will do even more. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend Senator Whitehouse in paying tribute to an extraordinary American, an extraordinary Rhode Islander, George Panichas. Senator Whitehouse, with eloquence and obviously great feeling that I share with him, recognized this extraordinary individual. He has been a friend and a mentor to both of us. He has been a force throughout his life for not only what we believe is central to America--opportunity for all, a sense of fairness and justice and decency--but he also has been intimately involved in his native land, Greece and Cyprus. He is someone who represents the ideal of what an American should be. As a young man, he was a member of, at that time, the U.S. Army Air Corps. He flew 50 missions. He was a gunner on the aircraft. I think all of us recognize--although we did not participate in such challenging assignments--the kind of courage and mental toughness it takes to get in that aircraft and risk your life 50 times at least and to do so in an atmosphere of tension and danger. And George did it. Like so many of his generation, when he came home, he did not boast about it. He decided, though, that his service was not going to end with his discharge from the U.S. Army Air Corps. He was going to continue to serve this Nation because he had participated with his colleagues, his contemporaries, in a noble effort. He understood the decency of America. He was part of it, and he understood the great challenges ahead--challenges to build a fair, just, and more equal society. He took it upon himself to do that in many ways. He was a successful businessman. That was just one aspect of his contribution to the community. He was, as my colleague said, a State representative in our house of representatives. He was the first Greek American elected to the State house in Rhode Island. He was a staunch advocate for veterans. He was the leader of an effort that started many years ago in the sixties and seventies to build a State veterans cemetery in Rhode Island and to continue to maintain the highest quality at our State's veterans home. In fact, those two institutions, particularly the cemetery, are monuments to his efforts. He undertook this great effort at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the service of veterans, but no one was standing up and doing what George was doing--cajoling and persuading and convincing and using all manner of his charming temperament and his booming voice to start to assemble the resources in Rhode Island, and then nationally, to build what I feel--and I am sure I am speaking for my colleague--is the finest State veterans cemetery in the country. It is a place of reverence. It is a place of inspiration. It is a place the families of Rhode Island veterans feel is appropriate as a resting place of those who served this Nation. In October of 2008, in recognition of his great dedication and service, the administration building at the cemetery was named after George--a fitting tribute. In addition to being an active patriot of his country, our country, the United States of America, he never lost sight of the need to be a powerful force in Greek-American relations. His constant efforts to assist, both in terms of business enterprises in Greece and in terms of charitable organizations in Greece, and his continued work to pull together the bonds between Greece and the United States were remarkable. He was someone who was keenly interested and very effective in advocating a wise American policy toward Greece and Cyprus and to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He was an extraordinary individual, and he will be missed. In all his endeavors, he had the support, the love, and derived strength from his wife Angela, who was a wonderful woman. And of course his daughters, Denise and Joan, have continued the tradition of service in making the community a better place, and his son George, Jr., has a proud name and he carries it proudly. Of course, his grandchildren are remarkable too. I think the only way to end these few words for a great gentleman is to recall the words of another Greek--Thucydides--who said: The bravest of the brave are those who see both the glory and the danger and go forth to meet it. George Panichas did that as an airman, as a citizen, as an American who used his opportunity to help others. Mr. President, we miss this great gentleman, and we are so honored to be able to say a few words about him. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, shortly, we will have the honor and privilege, myself and Senator Whitehouse, to join in supporting and confirming the nomination of Justice Rogeriee Thompson, who will be confirmed today to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Thompson is an eminent member of our Rhode Island courts. She has been an Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court since 1997. She is a path breaker in many respects in terms of her talent, but also because she is the first woman of African-American descent to serve on the Rhode Island Superior Court. She will be the first African American to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals and only the second woman. She has achieved these remarkable results because of her intellect, her character, her integrity, and her deep commitment to fairness and to justice. She is a remarkable woman. We are pleased and delighted that her nomination has been forwarded to us by the President. He has made a wise choice. Today, we will have the opportunity to consider the nomination and confirm her. She will do a remarkable job on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Originally, Justice Thompson was born in South Carolina, but she came to Rhode Island to attend Brown University. She earned her J.D. from the Boston University School of Law and began her career as a staff attorney at Rhode Island Legal Services. So her progression to the First Circuit is one that has carried her a long way. I think it has included, very importantly, a strong commitment not just to the most fortunate in our country, but also to those who desperately need help and assistance. She will bring that sense of fairness and decency to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthy woman and her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I am wondering if the Senator can confirm that we have routinely extended unemployment benefits over many decades, over both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic Congresses, and we have always done it when the unemployment rate was at least above 7.4 percent. I think the lowest unemployment rate in which we suspended unemployment, extending benefits, was 7.4 percent. I say that because in Rhode Island we are up to 12.9 percent and there are other States that are equally disadvantaged. This not only sort of upsets what I think is the logical way to proceed on this tonight, but it rejects decades and decades of the common sense and common decency of the Congress. I think and I hope you can confirm that understanding.

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 today taken a very strong, positive step forward in terms of responding to the No. 1 crisis in our economy, and that is jobs for all of our people. Under Leader Reid's leadership, we were able to get a bill through, with a huge majority, and it signals, I hope, not only attention to jobs but also the willingness and the ability to find common ground to serve the people of our country. We are now on the travel promotion bill, which is another piece of legislation designed to encourage job creation in the travel industry. All of this is good news. The legislation we propose this morning combines elements of tax breaks for small businesses so they can expense their items, increase their cashflow, and hire more people with credits for hiring people. There is a huge investment in our infrastructure, which will put people to work in the building industry and in industries that supply all these infrastructure projects, and there is also a significant commitment to Build America Bonds. These are good programs, and they are fully paid for. We are now taking up the challenge to put people to work, to do it in a responsible way, and to do so in a way that we can attract bipartisan support. But there is much more to do. There is the recognition that we have to not only create jobs but for the foreseeable future deal with those people who have been looking unsuccessfully for jobs and who are unemployed. In my home State of Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is 12.9 percent. That is the official rate. Unofficially, it is much higher, as many people have dropped out of the workforce. If you look at sectors in terms of ethnicity or age, the numbers are even more startling. The bill we passed this morning is a good first step forward, but we have to do much more. I think one of the first jobs we have to address is the extension of unemployment benefits. They will expire this Sunday. We have to recognize that, despite many efforts here, there are millions of Americans who are looking every day and not finding work. They need support. All of the economists who have looked at these programs indicated that not only do they support individuals and families, they provide a tremendous multiplier of economic activity for every dollar we commit to the program. There is, as they say, a big bang for the buck. People who are without a job will take their benefits and invariably they will have to support themselves in terms of going to the grocery store-- doing the things you have to do just to get by day by day. They are not typically saving this money. That helps in the sense of increasing demand in the economy overall, increasing our economic growth. If Congress fails to act swiftly, 1,200 Rhode Islanders will start losing their benefits each week. It is a small State and that is a big number. We have never before in our history, at least postwar history, ever terminated extended unemployment and emergency unemployment benefits until unemployment was at least 7.4 percent. At that point it appears, in most cases, that there is a self-sustaining economic growth that will itself begin to continue to lower the unemployment rate. We are far from 7.4 percent. As I said, in my State it is 12.9. The national average is hovering around 10. We have to do this. Congress has acted eight times--1958, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2008--to establish temporary federal unemployment benefit programs beyond regular unemployment compensation and extended benefits. Not to extend these benefits would essentially reject the consistent record of this Congress of helping Americans when the unemployment rate has reached such extraordinary proportions as it is today, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. Last November, we did approve, without opposition, an expansion of up to 20 weeks, but now we need to pass a further extension. As I said before, this is not just about helping families and individuals, it is also about helping the economy. For every $1 we invest in our unemployment benefits, we see $1.90 in economic activity overall throughout the economy. One of the reasons I heard to oppose this morning's legislation: There is not enough demand to justify these tax incentives; they will not be used. One of the things that does generate demand, consumer demand particularly, is the unemployment compensation program. It is not the way we want to do it. What we would like to see is a productive economy with jobs where the demand comes not only from people working but their being compensated and also being able, with discretionary income, to make consumption choices that today they cannot. As I said before, we have to think about an agenda for jobs. We passed one piece of legislation today. We are discussing the travel legislation at this moment. We have to then move to the legislation with respect to unemployment compensation. We also have to think about supporting the States with additional FMAP, that is, the funds for Medicaid, because, again, not only will that help our States, but without it you are going to see a contraction in our health care industry in terms of hospitals being able to hire or willing to hire. So we have many steps to go forward. One aspect of this issue, which I would like to mention is that many of these programs we have talked about--for example, the tax credits for hiring--are nationwide and they miss the point that there are some areas that are much more affected by unemployment than other areas. We have States--and their good fortune is something we should be proud of--that have rates as low as 4.7 percent for unemployment. Yet they will qualify for these general, generic programs. As we go forward and start thinking about additional steps, I think we also have to think about how we can target those programs to areas that have critical unemployment situations. Rhode Island, at 12.9 percent, is one, but there are many others. If you look within States, there are regions that have significant unemployment problems. Again, we have taken steps to extend our benefits, but as we go forward, as we consider additional legislation, let's also think seriously about how to make it more effective, more efficient, more targeted. I again urge all my colleagues to continue the effort and spirit which resulted today in an overwhelming vote for a program that will help Americans and move our country and our economy forward. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Institute of Finance Act of 2010, which would create an Institute to provide our financial regulators with the data and analytic tools needed to prevent and contain future financial crises. By establishing this new Institute, my bill offers the foundation for a new approach to financial regulation that would better protect Americans from the financial storm they are currently struggling through. Over the past 18 months, we have learned that our regulators did not have the appropriate tools or knowledge to address risks that cut across different markets and sectors of the financial system. The recently passed House financial regulatory reform bill and other proposals take an important step in filling this huge regulatory gap by establishing centralized systemic risk oversight. However, any new regulatory structure will be ineffective unless we also equip it with a strong, independent, and well-funded data, research, and analytic capacity to fulfill its mission. The idea for the National Institute of Finance has been endorsed by a dedicated group of the Nation's top academic researchers, economists, and statisticians--including Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz--who recognize that any financial regulatory reform is incomplete without a much stronger data, research, and analytic capability. To further explore these issues, I asked the National Academy of Sciences in August to study the data and tools needed for systemic risk regulation. Among the Academy's findings: that the U.S. currently lacks the technical tools to monitor and manage systemic financial risk with sufficient comprehensiveness and precision. That market efficiency, in addition to regulatory capacity, would be enhanced by improved intelligence about what is going on in the system as a whole. And that existing capabilities are not a sufficient foundation for systemic risk management. The bill I introduce today addresses these significant weaknesses by creating the National Institute of Finance, whose mission will be to support the community of financial regulatory agencies by collecting and standardizing the reporting of financial market data; performing applied and essential long-term research; and developing tools for measuring and monitoring systemic risk. The Institute would house a data center that would collect, validate and maintain key data to perform its mission, including a central database to map the interconnections between financial institutions, along with details on their transactions and positions, and their valuation of their assets and liabilities. By working with banks and other firms to standardize the format of such data and by providing standard reference data, such as databases of legal entities and financial products, the Institute would reduce the costs to regulators and financial institutions from the currently fragmented and disorganized systems used to collect and store such information. Second, the Institute would contain a research and analysis center to develop the needed metrics and then measure and monitor systemic risk posed by individual firms and markets. This new Institute would house some of the country's most-well-respected researchers to collect and analyze the data needed to understand what is happening in our financial markets, to conduct investigations of market disruptions, and to work with regulators to identify new and dangerous trends. It would conduct and help coordinate applied research on financial markets and systemic risk, a field that is not well-represented right now at the Federal Reserve or within our other regulatory agencies. It would also develop the metrics and tools our regulators need to measure and monitor systemic risk and help policymakers by conducting studies and providing advice on the impact of government policies on systemic risk. Finally, the Institute would provide independent periodic reports to Congress on the state of the financial system, ensuring that we are kept apprised of the overall picture of our markets more effectively than we have been in the past. The domino effect caused by the recession will continue to cripple Rhode Island families and Americans across the country unless we put in place a strong new infrastructure and shore up our financial markets. I hope my colleagues will join me in strengthening our financial system by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Institute of Finance Act of 2010, which would create an Institute to provide our financial regulators with the data and analytic tools needed to prevent and contain future financial crises. By establishing this new Institute, my bill offers the foundation for a new approach to financial regulation that would better protect Americans from the financial storm they are currently struggling through. Over the past 18 months, we have learned that our regulators did not have the appropriate tools or knowledge to address risks that cut across different markets and sectors of the financial system. The recently passed House financial regulatory reform bill and other proposals take an important step in filling this huge regulatory gap by establishing centralized systemic risk oversight. However, any new regulatory structure will be ineffective unless we also equip it with a strong, independent, and well-funded data, research, and analytic capacity to fulfill its mission. The idea for the National Institute of Finance has been endorsed by a dedicated group of the Nation's top academic researchers, economists, and statisticians--including Nobel Laureate Harry Markowitz--who recognize that any financial regulatory reform is incomplete without a much stronger data, research, and analytic capability. To further explore these issues, I asked the National Academy of Sciences in August to study the data and tools needed for systemic risk regulation. Among the Academy's findings: that the U.S. currently lacks the technical tools to monitor and manage systemic financial risk with sufficient comprehensiveness and precision. That market efficiency, in addition to regulatory capacity, would be enhanced by improved intelligence about what is going on in the system as a whole. And that existing capabilities are not a sufficient foundation for systemic risk management. The bill I introduce today addresses these significant weaknesses by creating the National Institute of Finance, whose mission will be to support the community of financial regulatory agencies by collecting and standardizing the reporting of financial market data; performing applied and essential long-term research; and developing tools for measuring and monitoring systemic risk. The Institute would house a data center that would collect, validate and maintain key data to perform its mission, including a central database to map the interconnections between financial institutions, along with details on their transactions and positions, and their valuation of their assets and liabilities. By working with banks and other firms to standardize the format of such data and by providing standard reference data, such as databases of legal entities and financial products, the Institute would reduce the costs to regulators and financial institutions from the currently fragmented and disorganized systems used to collect and store such information. Second, the Institute would contain a research and analysis center to develop the needed metrics and then measure and monitor systemic risk posed by individual firms and markets. This new Institute would house some of the country's most-well-respected researchers to collect and analyze the data needed to understand what is happening in our financial markets, to conduct investigations of market disruptions, and to work with regulators to identify new and dangerous trends. It would conduct and help coordinate applied research on financial markets and systemic risk, a field that is not well-represented right now at the Federal Reserve or within our other regulatory agencies. It would also develop the metrics and tools our regulators need to measure and monitor systemic risk and help policymakers by conducting studies and providing advice on the impact of government policies on systemic risk. Finally, the Institute would provide independent periodic reports to Congress on the state of the financial system, ensuring that we are kept apprised of the overall picture of our markets more effectively than we have been in the past. The domino effect caused by the recession will continue to cripple Rhode Island families and Americans across the country unless we put in place a strong new infrastructure and shore up our financial markets. I hope my colleagues will join me in strengthening our financial system by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, in rising to support the confirmation of Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As has been pointed out throughout the course of this debate, his position at the Federal Reserve prior to September 2008 gave him the opportunity and the obligation to look carefully at a building crisis. His response was not as perceptive or as adroit as we all in hindsight would wish to see. He did recognize, however, by August of 2007 that this economy was slowing down, and he applied the traditional macroeconomic tools by beginning to lower the interest rate. By December of 2008, the interest rate was virtually zero, the Federal rate. That has helped, I think, keep the economy moving and has helped us move forward. But the point that so many of my colleagues have made is when it came to critical moments during the fall of 2008, Chairman Bernanke understood the problem and was able to use extraordinary measures, first persuading the Federal Reserve to follow his lead, and then using extraordinary measures to begin to blunt the worst effects of this economic crisis we faced, and continue to face, and his efforts to ensure that there was liquidity in the system-- precisely what was done incorrectly in 1929, 1930 through the early 1930s, where the Federal Reserve pulled back, accelerating the depression rather than cushioning the economy from further decline. He took innovative steps that seem sort of esoteric, but helped restore stability in capital markets. But he also took very decisive intervention with respect to the money market mutual funds, when the Reserve Fund broke the buck, as they say, when its net asset value dropped below a dollar, there was a tremendous sense of not only uncertainty but potential chaos as everyone was plotting to withdraw their funds from money markets, which would have created huge problems and which would have affected every American in this country. But he moved decisively and aggressively, along with the Treasury Department, to provide stability and support. He also helped create programs like the TALF program to restart markets for auto, home, credit card, student loan, and small business loans, his ability to interject liquidity into the system, gave us a break, if you will, from a rapidly deteriorating situation. I sense, and my colleagues have said, that in the future his reaction--calm, decisive, innovative, imaginative--was one of the things that prevented this catastrophic situation from becoming even worse. That is an important aspect that we must consider in regards to his renomination. There is something else too. If the Chairman is not confirmed, there will be a period of uncertainty as to who is leading the Federal Reserve and what direction will it take. The last thing we need today is uncertainty in our economic future. If the ability of individuals and institutions to invest, to commit their capital and their effort and their work is put on hold, then the progress we have seen--and it is not sufficient but we have seen some--in fact, there are expectations that the reports on gross domestic product tomorrow will show significant increases rather than significant contractions, which is what is what we saw under the last administration. But if we inject this uncertainty, if we go months and months with no one clearly in charge at the Federal Reserve, it will have a very tangible, rapid, and unfortunate effect on our ability to move forward with the economy. There is another issue here I think that is important to note. That other issue is that, having done all of these remarkable innovative programs to increase liquidity, to keep the engine of the economy running, albeit not at the level and speed and power we might want, but keep it moving, at some point those programs have to be unraveled, pulled back, because we will face another danger. We face a danger, perhaps, in terms of inflation rate effects. We face a danger in terms of currency issues, in terms of value of the dollar. This is something we all recognize, this great pivot, as I call it, moving away from low interest rates and liquidity infusion, to higher interest rates, the dismantling of some of these programs. For example, the Fed already announced that it intends to begin to slowly get out of its support for the mortgage market in a few weeks. All of that has to be as tacitly managed, as carefully understood, as these programs were in the fall of 2008 and 2009 when the Chairman was moving forward. As a result, I think we need someone who understands these programs, and understands them not just theoretically but literally from trial and error, from understanding what worked, what did not work, what the consequences are. No one has that type of knowledge and insight at this juncture other than Chairman Bernanke. He is, of course, as an individual, a man of remarkable integrity and character who is committed to public service, and who is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, someone who will continue to provide not only guidance but leadership at a place we sorely need it, at the Federal Reserve. From my talks with Chairman Bernanke, I think he understands that people are hurting, and that his role in getting our country back to full employment is just as important as his role in monetary policy. The engines of our economy are small businesses and jobs, and this is what people in my state of Rhode Island expect from the Federal Reserve. At this critical juncture, I hope that my colleagues will support Chairman Bernanke for a second term. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, our Nation faces unprecedented fiscal and economic challenges. This situation did not happen overnight. It did not happen in 2009. It is a situation created by 8 years of mismanagement and complacency under President Bush. For a decade, the easy replaced the difficult, and instead of seizing the chance in 2001 to wipe out our national debt, President Bush and his supporters went in the opposite direction. They focused on the short term, they encouraged lax regulatory oversight, particularly of financial markets, and they adopted an economic doctrine that called for borrowing to fund virtually every major Presidential initiative--tax cuts that were skewed toward the rich, difficult and costly wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and a prescription drug program that failed to negotiate costs with drugmakers and still leaves many seniors without coverage. Let's be clear: When President Bush took office, he was handed a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, which was quickly frittered away. In 8 years, the Bush administration added more debt than all the previous administrations combined, all the while middle-income households saw their earning power decline. Due to these failed and irresponsible economic and fiscal policies, the Obama administration inherited the worst recession since the 1930s and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. It should be no surprise to anyone that President Obama and Congress cannot reverse this mountain of bad decisions and deficits in a year, but we have been trying. Indeed, according to the very same nonpartisan agency, the Congressional Budget Office, that predicts our budget deficit for this year, the health care reform bill the Senate passed reduced health care spending and would have cut the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and over $1 trillion over 20 years. We also had to take action on a recovery bill that kept States from cutting police, firemen, and teachers, gave our Governors funds to repair and rebuild our infrastructure, and provided $288 billion in tax cuts to help middle-class families and businesses deal with the recession. These were not easy steps, but they were the right steps, and it is fair to note that the other side of the aisle's answer to these proposals has been to oppose these measures and offer no coherent alternative. Today, because of the shortcomings of the Bush administration and the recession that started in December 2007, we face the question of whether we want to default on the government's financial obligations to Social Security recipients and those who have purchased U.S. bonds. If we follow the course proposed by the other side of the aisle and vote no, the outcome is an even worse economic situation. Ask any economist of any background whether the government should default on its obligation and the answer is a resounding no. Yet that is what is proposed by too many here in the Senate. Although it is troubling to have to raise the debt to pay for a series of irresponsible choices, tax cuts, and a war in Iraq--all of which I opposed--it would be irresponsible to reject this measure. There is no doubt that we need to address the long-term fiscal challenges facing our Nation. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that producing a budget is not merely adjusting numbers on a ledger; it is allocating resources to serve people. Today, our first order of business has to be ensuring that economic recovery has taken root. While some areas of the country have shown signs of recovery, most Americans have not seen the benefits. In places such as Rhode Island, where State governments lack the resources to help people who are struggling to deal with crushing unemployment levels, the need for Federal assistance remains great. To balance the budget, we will have to make very difficult decisions, but many of us here have made them before. In 1993, without any support from congressional Republicans, Democrats made the tough decisions and took politically difficult votes that brought the budget surpluses that were handed off to President Bush 8 years later and then quickly squandered. Through the tough decisions we made, we were able to not only turn the economy around but eliminate deficit spending and cut the debt. Indeed, I remember that in 2001 some on the other side used the argument that we were paying off the government's debt too quickly as one reason they supported President Bush's reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest. And I stand ready to work with those who want to do the hard work of making the compromises that are necessary when it comes to spending and revenues. I am ready to support a pay-go rule that says you cannot pass a new bill without offsetting its costs, and I would urge my colleagues to reconsider the largess of the last farm bill, the multibillion dollar giveaway to ethanol makers, and the host of tax cuts for oil companies and companies that shift American jobs overseas. It is instructive to remember that in 1993 the challenge was met, as it should have been, through the normal legislative process, not by handing off the tough choices to a deficit commission. Congress can do better than give its responsibilities to a commission whose recommendations would very likely tilt toward cuts in programs that are crucial to our seniors and our young people. At the same time, the record shows that similar commissions have been unsuccessful in the past. It is only when elected representatives tackle the tough issues that we see positive results. Conversely, when these issues are ignored, as they were during the last administration, we see how quickly fiscal responsibility can unravel. President Obama and this Democratic-led Congress have already begun to take the hard and decisive steps to get our fiscal house in order. In response to skyrocketing health care costs, the Senate passed a health care bill that would meet President Obama's goal of reducing health care spending below projected levels, reining in the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years and by up to $1.6 trillion over the next 20 years. We have a difficult series of choices before us. Yet we can respond to the crisis of the moment and get our Nation on a path of fiscal soundness.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and also thank him for his great effort on this legislation. It is a profound privilege to have the opportunity to serve the people of Rhode Island and in that capacity to support the legislation before us. This effort has been decades in the making. Every year that passes without health insurance reform has made the task more difficult and, the need for reform, more essential. Rhode Islanders have seen their health care costs double in just the last decade. In 2000, the average employer-sponsored family health insurance policy cost about $6,700. In 2008, the same plan cost nearly $12,700. Without reform, by 2016, that family will pay over $24,000 in premiums, consuming 45 percent of their projected median income. Such a course is unsustainable by the families of Rhode Island.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the announcement yesterday that 44 Rhode Island teachers and nearly 9,000 teachers nationwide achieved National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification this year. The single most effective step we can take to raise student achievement and turn around struggling schools is to ensure that we improve the quality of our teachers. For years I have worked to improve what the Federal Government does to help train and develop teachers. Indeed, I have worked with National Board on nearly every piece of teacher quality legislation I have introduced in the Senate. The National Board has been instrumental in identifying effective teaching practices and infusing those practices throughout our Nations schools. Their certification process is rigorous and includes multiple components that regularly assess and improve a teacher's ability to improve student learning. Since 1994, 82,000 teachers have been National Board certified, including 383 Rhode Island teachers. Last week, the National Board announced an expansion of their certification process to include principals and other school leaders, recognizing the research that effective leadership is second only to classroom instruction among factors that influence student outcomes. I was pleased that this important expansion was made possible through Federal funding provided through the fiscal year 2009 Labor, Health, and Education appropriations bill. I congratulate the Rhode Island teachers and teachers nationwide on their significant accomplishment and dedication to their professional development, and I look forward to continuing to work with the National Board to ensure that our children have the most effective teachers, principals, and school leaders. I ask that the names of the Rhode Island teachers who achieved National Board certification this year be included 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, I rise today to introduce the Transitional Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, Act, and I am pleased to do so with the support of Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Akaka, Durbin, Klobuchar, and Begich. This bill is an important step in continuing the conversation about how we can help our States, businesses, and individuals as our economy recovers. In my State of Rhode Island, the economic downturn has been particularly hard hitting on families and businesses. As a result, the State has seen a decline in tax revenue and an increased enrollment in safety net programs like Medicaid. Revenue from the sales tax is down over 7 percent, income tax receipts are down 2.3 percent, and corporate tax revenue is down nearly 10 percent. At the same time, unemployment rates have soared to new heights, topping 13 percent earlier this year. In the past 2 years, 40,000 Rhode Islanders have lost their employer- sponsored health insurance. Many of these individuals have come to rely on Medicaid for health coverage. This has caused great strain on the State's resources and its Medicaid program. In November, we learned that the estimated Medicaid caseload for the year will cost over $40 million more than what the State had initially estimated in its budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I supported, provided States with additional Federal assistance through 2010. States have used these funds to help balance their budgets, minimize harmful cuts in public services, and, very importantly, to prevent tax increases in many cases. However, even with the funding from the Recovery Act, Rhode Island will close the current fiscal year $219.8 million in the red. A total of 38 States have looked ahead to fiscal year 2011, and they have estimated $92 billion in combined deficits in the coming year. As the State fiscal year nears, and more States have had ample time to analyze their fiscal health it is expected that the total shortfall will likely equal $180 billion. As Congress debates health reform and works to ensure that every American has access to health insurance in 2014, we must not forget about ensuring that Americans have access to health insurance between now and then, as the economy slowly recovers and as state budgets begin to heal. During this tough time we need to help individuals, businesses, and States, and I am particularly concerned with making sure our States have the resources to provide adequate health care. Unless Congress acts on FMAP legislation, States will be forced to use their limited resources to cover an expanded Medicaid population beginning in January 2011. Since States are planning their fiscal year 2011 budgets, which will begin in July, many Governors are requesting Congress act now to provide States with additional Federal support. The Transitional FMAP Act would extend the enhanced FMAP funding which we passed in the Recovery Act for two additional quarters. This extension accounts for the prolonged recession and ensures that the pressure of Medicaid needs do not overwhelm the States. The bill would also begin a slow decrease of enhanced FMAP funding from July 2011 through December 2013. This will help States as they recover and ensure that States do not experience a gap in assistance prior to health reform-related FMAP levels beginning in January 2014. Mr. President, this additional funding is important for States, businesses, and individuals. I know that Chairman Baucus and Leader Reid are well aware of the importance of FMAP and have a history to working to aid our States. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues to provide States with necessary additional Federal Medicaid assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.