Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Leahy, introduce the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act, which seeks to enhance the training and education of primary care providers and establish a new system for evaluating and analyzing primary care workforce programs funded by Title VII Health Professions Education and Training grants. In 1963, in response to an impending physician shortage, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act into law. Qualified educational and medical institutions became eligible for grants to support primary care curriculum and faculty development, and scholarships and loans to train individuals in certain primary care health professions. The country is, once again, facing a physician shortage. However, this time, the shortage is one component of a larger system-wide crisis. The Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act takes an important step toward providing our primary care providers with the necessary resources for better coordinating care, integrating treatment options, and communicating with patients. It also would enhance the evaluation and analysis of programs funded by Title VII grants in an effort to ensure that funding is appropriately allocated. The Title VII program deserves a robust evaluation and restructuring and I believe that the provisions set forth in the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act will accomplish that goal. My colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee agreed and voted to include similar provisions in the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was reported out of the Committee on July 15, 2009. We must continue our efforts to reform our health care system. In doing so, we must not forget about the important need to ensure an adequate workforce to care for patients. I look forward to the full Senate considering these vitally important reforms. 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, along with Senator Leahy, introduce the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act, which seeks to enhance the training and education of primary care providers and establish a new system for evaluating and analyzing primary care workforce programs funded by Title VII Health Professions Education and Training grants. In 1963, in response to an impending physician shortage, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act into law. Qualified educational and medical institutions became eligible for grants to support primary care curriculum and faculty development, and scholarships and loans to train individuals in certain primary care health professions. The country is, once again, facing a physician shortage. However, this time, the shortage is one component of a larger system-wide crisis. The Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act takes an important step toward providing our primary care providers with the necessary resources for better coordinating care, integrating treatment options, and communicating with patients. It also would enhance the evaluation and analysis of programs funded by Title VII grants in an effort to ensure that funding is appropriately allocated. The Title VII program deserves a robust evaluation and restructuring and I believe that the provisions set forth in the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act will accomplish that goal. My colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee agreed and voted to include similar provisions in the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was reported out of the Committee on July 15, 2009. We must continue our efforts to reform our health care system. In doing so, we must not forget about the important need to ensure an adequate workforce to care for patients. I look forward to the full Senate considering these vitally important reforms. 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, 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 Comprehensive Derivatives Regulation Act of 2009, or the CDRA, which establishes for the first time a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent derivatives trading activities from ever again contributing to catastrophic failures in our financial system. One year ago this month our nation found itself on the verge of a total financial meltdown with decades-old financial institutions collapsing overnight and credit markets freezing up in large part because companies like AIG took huge and risky bets selling totally unregulated credit default swaps, bets that backfired when the housing bubble burst. Derivatives are financial contracts that investors use to manage their risks or grow their portfolios. They are called derivatives because they derive their value from other things such as the price of corn at a future date, or whether a company fails to make good on its debts. While most derivatives offer companies the ability to better manage their risks, some irresponsible financial firms took huge risks in recent years using new, untested, and unregulated derivatives products. When these firms faltered, it sent shockwaves through our financial system and landed us in a recession. As a result, today families in Rhode Island and throughout the country struggle to keep their jobs and stay in their homes. I have been working over the past year with my Senate colleagues to develop a series of critical reforms to the financial sector to ensure that we never face such a perilous situation again. As the Chairman of the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, I have introduced bills to greatly strengthen oversight of credit rating agencies and hedge funds, which until now have been subject to relatively little regulation. Introducing the CDRA is another key step in filling the huge regulatory gaps in our financial system. This bill would put in place a truly comprehensive framework for regulating all such products. Derivatives have been overseen by two market regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, which has broad responsibility for protecting investors and ensuring the integrity of securities markets, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, which regulates commodity futures and the exchanges on which those products are traded. In part because of this shared jurisdiction, large segments of the derivatives markets, such as credit default swaps, have gone entirely unsupervised by either agency. This bill will fill these regulatory gaps. First, the bill would require standardized credit default swaps and other unregulated derivatives to be traded through a clearinghouse. This would protect the companies and the financial system from the risks posed by these instruments. Importantly, the bill also grants regulators the ability to oversee any new derivative product in the future, so dealers can no longer create products that fall into holes in the law. Second, the bill establishes robust capital and margin requirements for derivatives dealers and other major market participants, and subjects them to higher standards for products that are not traded on clearinghouses. Third, the bill subjects firms to new conduct requirements to protect investors from abusive practices in the market. It also includes new recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure that regulators and investors have broad information about derivatives transactions and positions throughout the financial sector. Fourth, the bill combats fraud and manipulation in derivatives markets by giving regulators new authority to set position limits and oversee the marketing of products to certain investors. The bill strengthens thresholds in place to ensure only sophisticated investors are engaging in certain types of trading. Finally, the bill rationalizes the sharing of jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, and establishes a process for quickly assigning responsibility for new products so they do not fall through the cracks. Specifically, the bill provides the SEC with jurisdiction over all derivatives that are securities or can be used as synthetic substitutes for securities, because without such authority over products that can affect securities markets, the SEC cannot accomplish its mission to protect investors and ensure the integrity and fairness of markets. The bill provides the CFTC with jurisdiction over all other derivatives. The bill also provides a fast and efficient process for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to resolve any differences in views between the agencies that might arise. I hope my colleagues will join me in improving the oversight of credit default swaps and other derivatives products 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 Comprehensive Derivatives Regulation Act of 2009, or the CDRA, which establishes for the first time a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent derivatives trading activities from ever again contributing to catastrophic failures in our financial system. One year ago this month our nation found itself on the verge of a total financial meltdown with decades-old financial institutions collapsing overnight and credit markets freezing up in large part because companies like AIG took huge and risky bets selling totally unregulated credit default swaps, bets that backfired when the housing bubble burst. Derivatives are financial contracts that investors use to manage their risks or grow their portfolios. They are called derivatives because they derive their value from other things such as the price of corn at a future date, or whether a company fails to make good on its debts. While most derivatives offer companies the ability to better manage their risks, some irresponsible financial firms took huge risks in recent years using new, untested, and unregulated derivatives products. When these firms faltered, it sent shockwaves through our financial system and landed us in a recession. As a result, today families in Rhode Island and throughout the country struggle to keep their jobs and stay in their homes. I have been working over the past year with my Senate colleagues to develop a series of critical reforms to the financial sector to ensure that we never face such a perilous situation again. As the Chairman of the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, I have introduced bills to greatly strengthen oversight of credit rating agencies and hedge funds, which until now have been subject to relatively little regulation. Introducing the CDRA is another key step in filling the huge regulatory gaps in our financial system. This bill would put in place a truly comprehensive framework for regulating all such products. Derivatives have been overseen by two market regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, which has broad responsibility for protecting investors and ensuring the integrity of securities markets, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, which regulates commodity futures and the exchanges on which those products are traded. In part because of this shared jurisdiction, large segments of the derivatives markets, such as credit default swaps, have gone entirely unsupervised by either agency. This bill will fill these regulatory gaps. First, the bill would require standardized credit default swaps and other unregulated derivatives to be traded through a clearinghouse. This would protect the companies and the financial system from the risks posed by these instruments. Importantly, the bill also grants regulators the ability to oversee any new derivative product in the future, so dealers can no longer create products that fall into holes in the law. Second, the bill establishes robust capital and margin requirements for derivatives dealers and other major market participants, and subjects them to higher standards for products that are not traded on clearinghouses. Third, the bill subjects firms to new conduct requirements to protect investors from abusive practices in the market. It also includes new recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure that regulators and investors have broad information about derivatives transactions and positions throughout the financial sector. Fourth, the bill combats fraud and manipulation in derivatives markets by giving regulators new authority to set position limits and oversee the marketing of products to certain investors. The bill strengthens thresholds in place to ensure only sophisticated investors are engaging in certain types of trading. Finally, the bill rationalizes the sharing of jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, and establishes a process for quickly assigning responsibility for new products so they do not fall through the cracks. Specifically, the bill provides the SEC with jurisdiction over all derivatives that are securities or can be used as synthetic substitutes for securities, because without such authority over products that can affect securities markets, the SEC cannot accomplish its mission to protect investors and ensure the integrity and fairness of markets. The bill provides the CFTC with jurisdiction over all other derivatives. The bill also provides a fast and efficient process for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to resolve any differences in views between the agencies that might arise. I hope my colleagues will join me in improving the oversight of credit default swaps and other derivatives products 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. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate that clarification. As the Senator knows, I had been concerned because the table indicates that the State of Rhode Island is one of only two States, along with Maine, that would lose funding under the increased appropriation included in this bill. I have consulted with the Federal Highway Administration, which has produced a new estimate based on more accurate assumptions. That table has been shared with the Appropriations Committee staff. Rather than a decline of over $5 million, this estimate shows an increase of nearly $6 million for the State of Rhode Island. In addition, no State is shown to lose funding in fiscal year 2010. Would the Senator agree that this new table is a more accurate depiction of the distribution federal highway funds?

Mr. REED. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this bill and her commitment to funding improvements in our Nation's housing and transportation infrastructure. I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy to clarify the State-by-State allocation of Federal-Aid Highway Program funding, which is shown in the committee report.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. As I noted, page 46 of the committee report includes a table that shows the estimated State-by-State obligation limitation for Federal-Aid Highway Program funding. This information was prepared for the Appropriations Committee by the Federal Highway Administration based on current law and the funding level provided in this bill. It is my understanding that this table is designed to be illustrative rather than determinative of actual funding levels. Could the Senator confirm that this understanding is correct?

Mr. REED. Again, I thank the chairman for her leadership on this bill and for her help in clarifying this matter. For the benefit of all senators, I would ask unanimous consent that the Federal Highway Administration table we have discussed be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senator Snowe and Senator Shaheen, the National Oilheat Research Alliance Reauthorization Act of 2009. Since its establishment in 2001, the National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA, has been a helpful entity for consumers of home heating fuel. As part of the Energy Act of 2000, Congress authorized the heating oil industry to conduct a referendum to create NORA and to permit a small fraction of the wholesale price of heating oil--2/10 of a cent per gallon--to be paid by oilheat wholesale distributors to fund industry-led research and development, energy conservation, safety, training, and consumer education initiatives. Since that time, R&D funded in part by NORA has been responsible for gains in efficiency as well as improvement in equipment that run on biofuels. In my home state, the next generation of oilheat technicians is being taught using classes developed by NORA. NORA's current authorization expires in February 2010. The bipartisan bill we are introducing today extends the authorization for another year to allow NORA to continue operating. This extension will give Congress time to complete a longer-term reauthorization that will make important reforms to NORA. It is essential that this extension be signed into law before the end of this year. Otherwise, NORA will be forced to start shutdown procedures in advance of the authorization lapsing. Currently, the oilheat industry in 23 states and the District of Columbia--representing more than 8.5 million homes and businesses-- participates in NORA. It is important that Congress act quickly on this bill to ensure that the benefits NORA creates for these families and businesses continue uninterrupted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senator Snowe and Senator Shaheen, the National Oilheat Research Alliance Reauthorization Act of 2009. Since its establishment in 2001, the National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA, has been a helpful entity for consumers of home heating fuel. As part of the Energy Act of 2000, Congress authorized the heating oil industry to conduct a referendum to create NORA and to permit a small fraction of the wholesale price of heating oil--2/10 of a cent per gallon--to be paid by oilheat wholesale distributors to fund industry-led research and development, energy conservation, safety, training, and consumer education initiatives. Since that time, R&D funded in part by NORA has been responsible for gains in efficiency as well as improvement in equipment that run on biofuels. In my home state, the next generation of oilheat technicians is being taught using classes developed by NORA. NORA's current authorization expires in February 2010. The bipartisan bill we are introducing today extends the authorization for another year to allow NORA to continue operating. This extension will give Congress time to complete a longer-term reauthorization that will make important reforms to NORA. It is essential that this extension be signed into law before the end of this year. Otherwise, NORA will be forced to start shutdown procedures in advance of the authorization lapsing. Currently, the oilheat industry in 23 states and the District of Columbia--representing more than 8.5 million homes and businesses-- participates in NORA. It is important that Congress act quickly on this bill to ensure that the benefits NORA creates for these families and businesses continue uninterrupted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleague to pay tribute to an extraordinary American, probably the greatest Senator to serve in this body. I think time will confirm that as we go forward. I particularly want to express my deepest sympathy to Vicki and Kara and Patrick and Ted Jr. I have had the privilege now of serving with Senator Ted Kennedy but also with Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and both of these gentlemen have demonstrated zeal for public service and commitment and passion to help people that has been emblematic of the Kennedy family. I particularly am proud of Patrick, his words at his father's funeral. His continued dedication to the people of Rhode Island is not only commendable but inspiring to me and to all of us. Like so many of my generation, I grew up with the Kennedy family. In 1960, John Kennedy carried the banner of the Democratic Party as the Presidential candidate. He won, but, as we understood then and now, we got the whole family, not just President John Kennedy, and it was a remarkable family--his brother Robert, the Attorney General and later the U.S. Senator from New York, and then, of course, Ted Kennedy. His contribution to the country and to the world is probably unmatchable as we go forward in every area: health care, which was his particular passion and on which President Obama spoke so movingly last evening about his commitment to moving forward in this Congress and finally achieving a dream that has alluded our country for years and years and years; his work with his son Patrick on mental health parity, which is so important. On education, I had the privilege of serving with him on the Education Committee and as a Member of the House to collaborate with him on education bills, and every major education initiative in this country bears his stamp, his input, his inspiration. He worked very closely with my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, for the creation of the Pell grants and for so many other initiatives in education. He not only worked with Senator Pell, they developed a very deep and abiding friendship. One of the impressive things about Ted Kennedy is that the public persona was impressive, the private persona was equally impressive and extraordinarily endearing. He was someone who had a great sense of camaraderie and friendship and good humor. I can recall being invited to join Senator Kennedy at the Pells' home in Newport after Senator Pell retired. Every year, unannounced, without any fanfare, Senator Kennedy would sail his boat up into Newport and insist on taking Senator Pell out for a cruise, and then they would all retire to the Pell home for a delightful supper. I was privileged to be there on a couple of occasions. Toward the end of his life, Senator Pell had difficulty moving around, but Senator Kennedy would insist on coming every summer. The last outing, we literally had to carry Senator Pell aboard. Senator Pell at that time was not communicating as effectively as he was previously, but he didn't have to because Senator Kennedy could take both parts of the conversation--in fact, he could take multiple parts of the conversation. There was never a lost word or a dull moment. It was a great opportunity to see an extraordinary statesman but an extraordinary gentleman at the same time. He said famously about his brothers that they lived to see the American dream become reality, and he said famously that the dream lives on. But he also, more than dreaming, tried to give substance, shape, and texture to that dream, effectively to try to ensure that opportunity was available to every American family, that they could use their talent to build their family and to secure their future and to contribute to a better America. That was why he led on health care, because without adequate health care, you cannot realize your talents, your potential, and you cannot contribute as much to this great country. He led on education because it is the great engine that pulls this Nation forward and individually gives people an opportunity to move up and to help their families move forward. On civil rights, he was a strong advocate. In fact, I think it is fair to say that his first major speech was in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he understood that the talent of America was not restricted to any group and that to meet the challenges of this Nation and this world, we need the contribution and the participation of every American, regardless of race, regardless of gender. He also was someone who understood that for the working men and women of this country, they needed help, they needed to share in the bounty of this country. What we have seen over the last decade has been growth, up until the crisis of last September, but that growth was not shared fairly or evenly, executives getting huge salaries and bonuses and working men and women were barely keeping up. In order to have a strong, prosperous economy, we need a strong, prosperous middle class. His work in terms of education and health care and labor--all of that had a purpose not only of helping individuals but, wisely, trying to establish an environment for economic growth that we all could share. He also served on the defense committee with me. And he was very perceptive. He had spent many years viewing the world, and his understanding of not only the military but the forces, economic and cultural, that shape our interaction with other countries was profound in its insights. He was, very clearly, opposed to the operation in Iraq because he understood that it was a strategic deviation from the real task, which continues in Afghanistan, to root out al-Qaida, to stabilize the region, the most volatile region in the country. That is just one example of his insight into the international arena. There is a story, and it is attributed to either his brother John or to Senator Kennedy, but I think it might be apropos for both. It might be slightly apocryphal, but either John or Ted, according to the story, was standing outside a factory and a worker came up and said: They tell me you have never worked a day in your life. And Kennedy was taken aback. Then shortly, the worker said: Don't worry, you haven't missed anything. A family of great privilege, of great opportunity, in fact worked every day of their lives, and particularly Ted Kennedy, hard, relentlessly to ensure that person coming out of the factory had a chance. Finally, what I sensed when I was at the funeral service, which was extraordinarily moving and inspirational, the outpouring of affection and regard for Senator Kennedy, not by the dignitaries who assembled but by ordinary citizens of Massachusetts and here lining the route to Arlington, bespeaks a connection and a validation by the American people of an individual who had trials and tribulations but rose above it in constant service to the country, in constant service to the people who do not have a voice, and constant service to those who need a chance to help themselves, to help their family, and to make the Nation a better place. It reminded me of words spoken about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His cortege was moving through Washington, DC, and a man was visibly shaken and weeping. A reporter went up to him and said: You know, you are so upset, did you know the President? He said: No, I did not know him, but he knew me. Ted Kennedy knew us all. He knew our strengths, he knew our weaknesses, he knew that this government could make a difference, a positive difference in the lives of people. He had shared the same difficulties and challenges we face: children stricken with cancer, the loss of his brothers and one of his sisters in an airplane crash, the human reality. And because he knew us, he never stopped working for us. His legacy is extraordinary. It will inspire and sustain us as we go forward. His loss, not just to his family, which is considerable, but for all of us, is balanced by how much he made us better, more attuned to the challenge of serving America and leading the world. We will miss him. But our task now is to take up his work, to continue his effort. That is the greatest tribute we can pay. Let us begin with this debate on health care. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand.) The Senator from Kansas.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce with my colleague Senator Johanns, the Healthy Housing Council Act. I thank Senators Boxer, Merkley, and Franken for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill. This legislation would establish an independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive branch in order to improve the coordination of existing but fragmented programs, thereby enhancing the abilities of families to access Government programs and services in a more efficient and effective manner. Many factors impact our health; however, our environment can be one of the most critical determinants to our overall health and well-being. That is why the issue of healthy housing is so important. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 5.7 million households living in conditions with moderate or severe hazards such as incomplete cooking facilities, inadequate plumbing, the presence of mice and rats, and crumbling roofs and foundations. This count of moderate or severe physical problems does not even include significant lead-based paint hazards, which persist in 23 million, or approximately four times as many, households. Sadly, housing-related health hazards take a heavy toll on Americans, resulting in 11,000 unintentional injury deaths, 3,000 deaths in house fires, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths each year. Low-income and minority individuals and families are disproportionately affected by housing-related health hazards. We know that residents of poorly designed, constructed, or maintained housing are at greater risk for serious illnesses and injuries, including cancer, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, falls, rodent bites, childhood lead poisoning, and asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, non-Hispanic Blacks and Mexican- Americans are three times as likely to have elevated blood-lead levels, compared to non-Hispanic whites. About 1.2 million housing units with significant lead-based paint hazards house low-income families with children under 6 years of age. If the disease and injury toll on our Nation's individuals and families, particularly our children, is not enough to demonstrate the need for coordinated Federal Government action on housing-related health hazards, consider some of the annual costs. According to research at the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center, annual costs for environmentally attributable childhood diseases in the U.S. total an estimated $54.9 billion. That number is approximately 3 percent of total health care costs. Indeed, as our housing deteriorates, our health care system bears the brunt of the associated injuries and illnesses. The good news is that low-cost preventative measures can have dramatic effects. For example, properly installing and maintaining a smoke alarm can cut the risk of deaths due to fire in half. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that providing healthy housing to American families will help prevent 20 million asthma cases, 240,000 incidents of elevated blood-lead levels in young children, 14,000 burn injuries, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths. While there are many programs in place to address housing-related health hazards, these programs are fragmented and spread across many agencies, making it difficult for at-risk families to access assistance or to receive the comprehensive information they need. To address this situation, our bill authorizes $750,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 to 2014 for an independent Council on Healthy Housing, which would bring Federal, State, and local government representatives, as well as industry and nonprofit representatives, to the table at least once a year. The council would review, monitor, and evaluate existing housing, health, energy, and environmental programs. The council would then make recommendations to reduce duplication, ensure collaboration, identify best practices, and develop a comprehensive healthy housing research agenda. In order to ensure that members of the public are informed of and benefit from the council's activities, the council would hold biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance. While there is a growing consensus on ways to help communities make housing healthier, the lack of coordination has made it difficult for the public to access this information and related research and data. By creating this council, we can provide a useful forum for health and housing experts, whether in the Government, private, or nonprofit sector, to share their experiences, successes, and lessons for the future. The Healthy Housing Council Act will help us embark on a path to assure that affordable and decent homes are also healthy. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator Johanns, Boxer, Merkley, and Franken in supporting this bipartisan bill and other healthy housing efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce with my colleague Senator Johanns, the Healthy Housing Council Act. I thank Senators Boxer, Merkley, and Franken for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill. This legislation would establish an independent interagency Council on Healthy Housing in the executive branch in order to improve the coordination of existing but fragmented programs, thereby enhancing the abilities of families to access Government programs and services in a more efficient and effective manner. Many factors impact our health; however, our environment can be one of the most critical determinants to our overall health and well-being. That is why the issue of healthy housing is so important. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 5.7 million households living in conditions with moderate or severe hazards such as incomplete cooking facilities, inadequate plumbing, the presence of mice and rats, and crumbling roofs and foundations. This count of moderate or severe physical problems does not even include significant lead-based paint hazards, which persist in 23 million, or approximately four times as many, households. Sadly, housing-related health hazards take a heavy toll on Americans, resulting in 11,000 unintentional injury deaths, 3,000 deaths in house fires, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths each year. Low-income and minority individuals and families are disproportionately affected by housing-related health hazards. We know that residents of poorly designed, constructed, or maintained housing are at greater risk for serious illnesses and injuries, including cancer, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, falls, rodent bites, childhood lead poisoning, and asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, non-Hispanic Blacks and Mexican- Americans are three times as likely to have elevated blood-lead levels, compared to non-Hispanic whites. About 1.2 million housing units with significant lead-based paint hazards house low-income families with children under 6 years of age. If the disease and injury toll on our Nation's individuals and families, particularly our children, is not enough to demonstrate the need for coordinated Federal Government action on housing-related health hazards, consider some of the annual costs. According to research at the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center, annual costs for environmentally attributable childhood diseases in the U.S. total an estimated $54.9 billion. That number is approximately 3 percent of total health care costs. Indeed, as our housing deteriorates, our health care system bears the brunt of the associated injuries and illnesses. The good news is that low-cost preventative measures can have dramatic effects. For example, properly installing and maintaining a smoke alarm can cut the risk of deaths due to fire in half. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that providing healthy housing to American families will help prevent 20 million asthma cases, 240,000 incidents of elevated blood-lead levels in young children, 14,000 burn injuries, and 21,000 radon-associated lung cancer deaths. While there are many programs in place to address housing-related health hazards, these programs are fragmented and spread across many agencies, making it difficult for at-risk families to access assistance or to receive the comprehensive information they need. To address this situation, our bill authorizes $750,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 to 2014 for an independent Council on Healthy Housing, which would bring Federal, State, and local government representatives, as well as industry and nonprofit representatives, to the table at least once a year. The council would review, monitor, and evaluate existing housing, health, energy, and environmental programs. The council would then make recommendations to reduce duplication, ensure collaboration, identify best practices, and develop a comprehensive healthy housing research agenda. In order to ensure that members of the public are informed of and benefit from the council's activities, the council would hold biannual stakeholder meetings, maintain an updated website, and work to unify healthy housing data collection and maintenance. While there is a growing consensus on ways to help communities make housing healthier, the lack of coordination has made it difficult for the public to access this information and related research and data. By creating this council, we can provide a useful forum for health and housing experts, whether in the Government, private, or nonprofit sector, to share their experiences, successes, and lessons for the future. The Healthy Housing Council Act will help us embark on a path to assure that affordable and decent homes are also healthy. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator Johanns, Boxer, Merkley, and Franken in supporting this bipartisan bill and other healthy housing efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Assistance for Unemployed Workers Extension Act, legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits so people can pay their bills while they look for work. These benefits are set to expire at the end of this year. I am joined in introducing this critical legislation by Senators Durbin, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg, Levin, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Brown, Begich, Burris, and Franken. Last fall, I authored the law that provided additional weeks of unemployment insurance for individuals exhausting their benefits. Among other provisions to help stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help the unemployed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act extended the termination dates of these unemployment benefits. Yet, as jobs have become scarcer, we need to do more. My legislation will continue several current-law unemployment compensation programs through 2010. In addition, it also provides help to those who are getting stuck on unemployment for long periods. Indeed, there is only roughly one job opening for every five job seekers. The Assistance for Unemployed Workers Extension Act provides 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance for states like Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oregon, California, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia as well as other states which have an unemployment rate at or above 8.5 percent. Without this legislation, over half a million workers are expected to exhaust their benefits by the end of September, and another 1.5 million are estimated to run out of coverage by the end of the year. This is an extraordinary number of Americans that will face life without a paycheck or an unemployment check during the worst economy since the Great Depression. While all states are suffering during these very difficult times, my own State of Rhode Island has been hit especially hard, saddled with the second highest unemployment rate and a recession that hit earlier than in any other State. More than 1,500 Rhode Islanders have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits this year. By November, another 3,300 unemployed Rhode Islanders will also exhaust their benefits. This is about 150 people each week. Providing basic support for those who are out-of-work through no fault of their own assures Americans can provide for their families and keep a roof over their heads, stemming the tide of foreclosures and the deterioration of neighborhoods. As has been the case with past extensions, I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation. It is critical that we provide help to the growing ranks of the unemployed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Keep Americans Working Act, legislation to strengthen and expand work share programs to keep Americans working and provide employers with an alternative to layoffs. This legislation allows employers to reduce the hours of their workers for some period of time and for the workers to receive proportionate unemployment benefits for those reduced hours to lessen the impact on them and their families. While 17 States, including Rhode Island, are using their resources to provide work share, these programs remain largely underutilized. Indeed, work share is simply not available in \2/3\ of States. In Rhode Island, the number of employees participating in the program has more than tripled this past year to 8,000 workers, in comparison to the year prior. It has also been highly successful. For instance, I recently visited Hope Global in Cumberland, Rhode Island, which has participated in Rhode Island's WorkShare program. At this company, I listened to an employee who worked there with her husband, and they benefitted from this program. She said, point blank: Without it, we would have lost our health care and we would have lost our home. Other states with work share programs have also experienced an extraordinary increase in participation. But given Rhode Island's 12.4 percent unemployment rate--the second highest in the country--we can stem even more job loss with this legislation. Specifically, the Keep Americans Working Act provides states with temporary federal financing for 100 percent of work share benefits paid to workers for up to 26 weeks. Employers have to certify that maintenance of health and retirement benefits is not affected by participation in the program. This financing program is available for 2 years. It also includes important limitations to ensure that taxpayer dollars are provided only when appropriate safeguards are in place. To hold employers accountable, states can assess penalties on employers that break the rules, including those who do not act in good faith to retain participating employees. In addition, to aid States in this effort, the Department of Labor would establish an oversight and monitoring process for state agencies to ensure that participating employers comply with the terms of the written plan approved by the state agency. Given that State labor agencies are already doing more with less, this legislation also provides for administrative funding, and for those States that are trying to get work share programs off the ground, it provides start-up grants. It is a win-win for all. First, work share helps speed economic recovery. Economist Mark Zandi estimates that temporary financing of work share offers a very high ``bang for the buck'' of $1.69. That is, every $1 devoted to finance State work share programs results in $1.69 in real GDP. Secondly, work share allows businesses to retain skilled workers, temporarily cut costs, and maintain employee morale. Thirdly, it keeps people working with their health insurance and retirement benefits. This means parents can continue to pay their mortgages and their bills and provide for their families. This legislation will help stem the tide of joblessness, providing workers, businesses, and communities with the resources to stay afloat while we work our way through these tough economic times. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Keep Americans Working Act, legislation to strengthen and expand work share programs to keep Americans working and provide employers with an alternative to layoffs. This legislation allows employers to reduce the hours of their workers for some period of time and for the workers to receive proportionate unemployment benefits for those reduced hours to lessen the impact on them and their families. While 17 States, including Rhode Island, are using their resources to provide work share, these programs remain largely underutilized. Indeed, work share is simply not available in \2/3\ of States. In Rhode Island, the number of employees participating in the program has more than tripled this past year to 8,000 workers, in comparison to the year prior. It has also been highly successful. For instance, I recently visited Hope Global in Cumberland, Rhode Island, which has participated in Rhode Island's WorkShare program. At this company, I listened to an employee who worked there with her husband, and they benefitted from this program. She said, point blank: Without it, we would have lost our health care and we would have lost our home. Other states with work share programs have also experienced an extraordinary increase in participation. But given Rhode Island's 12.4 percent unemployment rate--the second highest in the country--we can stem even more job loss with this legislation. Specifically, the Keep Americans Working Act provides states with temporary federal financing for 100 percent of work share benefits paid to workers for up to 26 weeks. Employers have to certify that maintenance of health and retirement benefits is not affected by participation in the program. This financing program is available for 2 years. It also includes important limitations to ensure that taxpayer dollars are provided only when appropriate safeguards are in place. To hold employers accountable, states can assess penalties on employers that break the rules, including those who do not act in good faith to retain participating employees. In addition, to aid States in this effort, the Department of Labor would establish an oversight and monitoring process for state agencies to ensure that participating employers comply with the terms of the written plan approved by the state agency. Given that State labor agencies are already doing more with less, this legislation also provides for administrative funding, and for those States that are trying to get work share programs off the ground, it provides start-up grants. It is a win-win for all. First, work share helps speed economic recovery. Economist Mark Zandi estimates that temporary financing of work share offers a very high ``bang for the buck'' of $1.69. That is, every $1 devoted to finance State work share programs results in $1.69 in real GDP. Secondly, work share allows businesses to retain skilled workers, temporarily cut costs, and maintain employee morale. Thirdly, it keeps people working with their health insurance and retirement benefits. This means parents can continue to pay their mortgages and their bills and provide for their families. This legislation will help stem the tide of joblessness, providing workers, businesses, and communities with the resources to stay afloat while we work our way through these tough economic times. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Assistance for Unemployed Workers Extension Act, legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits so people can pay their bills while they look for work. These benefits are set to expire at the end of this year. I am joined in introducing this critical legislation by Senators Durbin, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg, Levin, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Brown, Begich, Burris, and Franken. Last fall, I authored the law that provided additional weeks of unemployment insurance for individuals exhausting their benefits. Among other provisions to help stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help the unemployed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act extended the termination dates of these unemployment benefits. Yet, as jobs have become scarcer, we need to do more. My legislation will continue several current-law unemployment compensation programs through 2010. In addition, it also provides help to those who are getting stuck on unemployment for long periods. Indeed, there is only roughly one job opening for every five job seekers. The Assistance for Unemployed Workers Extension Act provides 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance for states like Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oregon, California, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia as well as other states which have an unemployment rate at or above 8.5 percent. Without this legislation, over half a million workers are expected to exhaust their benefits by the end of September, and another 1.5 million are estimated to run out of coverage by the end of the year. This is an extraordinary number of Americans that will face life without a paycheck or an unemployment check during the worst economy since the Great Depression. While all states are suffering during these very difficult times, my own State of Rhode Island has been hit especially hard, saddled with the second highest unemployment rate and a recession that hit earlier than in any other State. More than 1,500 Rhode Islanders have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits this year. By November, another 3,300 unemployed Rhode Islanders will also exhaust their benefits. This is about 150 people each week. Providing basic support for those who are out-of-work through no fault of their own assures Americans can provide for their families and keep a roof over their heads, stemming the tide of foreclosures and the deterioration of neighborhoods. As has been the case with past extensions, I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation. It is critical that we provide help to the growing ranks of the unemployed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this hour under Democratic control be divided in the following manner: Reed of Rhode Island, 15 minutes; Senator Carper, 10 minutes; Senator Kerry, 10 minutes; Senator Menendez, 5 minutes; Senator Schumer, 5 minutes; Senator Nelson of Florida, 3 minutes; and Senator Boxer, 10 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the nomination before us of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Associate Justice David Souter is of great importance. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of justice in the land. Therefore, this is one of the most consequential votes that any Senator can cast. The Constitution makes the Senate an active participant, along with the President, in the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states that nominees to the Supreme Court shall only be confirmed ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' The Senate's role in the confirmation process places an important democratic check on America's judiciary. As a result, this body's consent is both a constitutional requirement and a democratic obligation. It is in upholding our constitutional duties as Senators to give the President advice and consent on his nominations that I believe we have one of our greatest opportunities and responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As I have said before, in weighing a nominee's qualifications for the Court, we must consider an individual's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity and temperament. Judge Sotomayor's compelling life story demonstrates that she possesses each of these qualities. She overcame early adversity--with the loss of her father, a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes--to become an accomplished student at her high school. She went on to Princeton, where she excelled both inside and outside of the classroom, receiving the school's highest academic prize upon graduation. From there she became a stellar student at Yale Law School and served on its prestigious law journal. Upon graduating from Yale, Judge Sotomayor surely had a number of very lucrative options available to her. It is a testament to her early commitment to public service that she chose to serve 5 years as assistant district attorney in New York. By all accounts, she was a zealous and thorough prosecutor and demonstrated the same rigor and commitment to excellence that have been her hallmark throughout her career. Judge Sotomayor is extremely qualified for this role. As a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sotomayor would bring to bear her rich and varied real-world experience. She has been a big-city prosecutor. She has been an attorney in private practice. She has been a trial judge, and she also knows what it means to be an appellate judge. Judge Sotomayor would make history as only the third female Justice and the first Hispanic Justice. Moreover, she has more Federal judicial experience than any nominee to the Court in 100 years. Yet as compelling as these qualities and accomplishments are, there is a higher bar for a nominee to the Nation's highest Court. In previous consideration of Supreme Court judges, I have stated my test for a nominee for the Supreme Court. It is a simple test, one drawn from the text, the history and the principles of the Constitution. A nominee to the Supreme Court must live up to the spirit of the Constitution. A nominee must not only commit to enforcing the laws but also to doing justice. A nominee must give life and meaning to the great principles of the Constitution: Equality before the law, due process, freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. In my view, Judge Sotomayor has met this test quite admirably. Judge Sotomayor's opinions demonstrate that she is no ideologue. Instead, she seeks to carefully weigh the facts in determining a just and fair outcome. One issue of great concern at this time of conflict is executive power. As Commander in Chief, the President's duty is to guard the country's national security while also safeguarding individual freedoms. All too often, in my view, President Bush, guided by other government officials and questionable legal opinions, erred on the side of concentrating executive power. Indeed, I noted during my comments on Judge Alito's nomination that his avowal of the unitary executive theory was troubling in light of the Bush administration's policies. Judge Sotomayor's record on this issue suggests that she would more appropriately balance national security and individual freedom, and the role of Congress. In the case of Doe v. Mukasey, she joined a unanimous panel decision that stated: The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements. ``Under no circumstances shall the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.'' But she has also shown a clear recognition that within the appropriate sphere, the executive must be supported. In Cassidy v. Chertoff, she authored a unanimous panel opinion on the constitutionality of a ferry company's search of baggage and vehicles. The panel ultimately concluded that searches were permissible because ``it is minimally intrusive, and we cannot say, particularly in light of the deference we owe to the Coast Guard, that it does not constitute `a reasonable method of deterring the prohibited conduct.' '' In answering questions from my colleagues on the boundaries of presidential power during her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor chose her words carefully. However, she was clear in affirming that no one is above the law. On this issue and many others, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated a fair and balanced approach that will add to the high Court. I believe Judge Sotomayor would be an able successor to Judge Souter a court that in recent years has taken a sharp turn away from protections of privacy, freedom, and other values we hold dear. Judge Sotomayor's careful application of the facts to the Constitution and the quest for justice persuade me that she will make a worthy addition to our Nation's highest Court. Indeed, she meets my test as someone who will not only uphold the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. It is with great pleasure that I support her nomination to the highest Court in the land and urge my colleagues to do the same. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint letter of support signed by more than 1,200 law professors from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. In their joint letter, these professors write: Her opinions reflect careful attention to the facts of each case and a reading of the law that demonstrates fidelity to the text of statutes and the Constitution. She pays close attention to precedent and has proper respect for the role of courts and the other branches of government in our society.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Zero Tolerance for Veteran Homelessness Act. This comprehensive bill enhances and expands the assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless. It is one of our Nation's great tragedies that on any given night, 131,000 veterans are homeless. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that more than 200,000 veterans experience homelessness each year and that nearly 1/5 of all homeless people in the United States are veterans. These numbers are expected to climb as our servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan return home to face tough economic conditions. We know that veterans are often at greater risk of becoming homeless. Some return from deployments to discover that the skills they have honed in their military service can be difficult to transfer to jobs in the private sector. Others struggle with physical or mental wounds of war. Still others return to communities that lack safe, affordable housing. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve our country, and it is especially important to honor our commitment to them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is certainly a part of that commitment, providing benefits, medical care, support, and a sense of community to homeless veterans. However, a number of other federal agencies provide service to veterans, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this legislation builds on that existing infrastructure. Many programs through HUD and the VA are already helping homeless veterans with transitional housing, health care and rehabilitation services, and employment assistance. However, a more comprehensive and coordinated approach would strengthen these programs and prevent more at-risk veterans from becoming homeless. That is why I have joined with my colleagues Senators Bond, Murray, and Johnson to introduce this much-needed legislation. The Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act seeks to merge housing programs and support services for veterans from the start so that there is an integrated approach to address their risk of homelessness. First, this bill would create a new Homelessness Prevention program that would enable the VA to keep at-risk veterans in stable housing and offer increased assistance to veterans who have fallen into homelessness. Specifically, the VA could provide short-term rental assistance, housing relocation and stabilization services, services to resolve personal credit issues, payments for security deposits or utility costs, and assistance for moving costs. These up-front expenses can be the major obstacle that puts low-income or unemployed veterans at risk of becoming homeless. These homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing techniques have been successfully used in numerous communities to significantly reduce family homelessness, and this bill would give the VA resources to put these strategies into practice. Second, this bill would authorize additional housing vouchers through the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing, VASH, program. This collaborative program provides homeless veterans with vouchers to rent apartments in the private rental market, as well as case management and clinical services at local VA medical centers. In this way, veterans receive the supportive housing they need to recover and thrive. The HUD-VASH program has grown in recent years. Twenty thousand vouchers were funded in the last two appropriations cycles, and 10,000 more will likely be funded-in Fiscal Year 2010. However, more homeless veterans could benefit from this important resource. As such, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness bill authorizes up to 10,000 additional vouchers each year to reach a maximum of 60,000 vouchers by 2013. Third, this legislation would make it easier for non-profits to apply for capital grants through the VA's grants and per diem program to build transitional housing and other facilities for veterans. This would streamline the process for non-profit organizations to be able to use financing from other sources to break ground on new housing construction. This is particularly important in the current economy, when non-profits are stretched and have to be more creative than ever to fund new capital projects. The Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act would also create a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD. The Special Assistant would ensure that veterans have access to HUD's existing programs and work to remove any barriers. The Special Assistant would also serve as a liaison between HUD and the VA, helping to connect and coordinate the services the two departments provide. Additionally, this legislation recognizes the need to measure progress of efforts to combat homelessness. It establishes a new Homeless Veterans Management Information System, to be developed by the VA, in consultation with HUD and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. This data collection system will be used to provide annual reports to Congress on the number of homeless veterans and they types of assistance they receive. This information will help illustrate how programs are performing and inform future policy. Finally, the bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with other agencies, to analyze existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan with recommendations on how to end homelessness among veterans. Establishing a plan with appropriate benchmarks will enable the VA to more easily track progress towards this important goal. This bipartisan bill also complements a bill that I am cosponsoring with Senator Murray to enable programs at the VA and the Department of Labor to better serve homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children. Only by working together, across the federal government and in partnership with non-profits and local housing authorities, will we be able to comprehensively help homeless veterans and reach those in danger of becoming homeless. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they and their families have safe, affordable places to live and to provide the services and benefits they have earned. The nation's brave veterans deserve nothing less. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this important, bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Ensign amendment. This amendment would fund the unemployment compensation trust fund by taking unobligated money from the recovery package. It is ironic that one of the major tools we are using to maintain employment and grow it is the recovery package. In Rhode Island, our State used about $200 million, which is a significant sum in their budget, to ensure they didn't have to lay off workers, which would have increased the demand on unemployment, and that they could maintain services. All of this is a result of the recovery package. We are beginning to see the momentum pick up. For example, with respect to weatherization, Rhode Island initially received some funds, but then the bulk of the funds would be received based upon submission of their plan. The plan is underway. The State will see roughly $20 million over the next several months to get people to work doing weatherization. Not only does this help the environment, it also provides employment, particularly for those most hard hit, the construction industry. To take this money now and put it in the trust fund is counterintuitive and counterproductive. On those grounds alone, we have to seriously look at this amendment. The other issue that should be mentioned, among several, is that CBO has indicated that this approach of moving funds in the underlying bill has no effect on their baseline. It is an intergovernmental transfer that the underlying legislation is proposing. So this issue, again, is more of a comment, perhaps, on the recovery package than trying to effectively stem unemployment and to provide funds for those who are unemployed. The issue of unemployment is probably the most significant one we face in the country, particularly in my home State. We know joblessness is rising. It is 12.4 percent in Rhode Island. Rhode Island and 18 other States have had to borrow $12 billion to keep their State unemployment trust funds solvent. Rhode Island has borrowed more than $80 million itself to cover unemployment costs, and over the next few months, they will draw on a line of credit of about $40 million to keep paying these benefits, which are absolutely critical to families who have lost their jobs. If we don't, today, transfer these funds, as suggested in the underlying legislation, Rhode Island and many other States would be looking at a real crisis in which they would fail to be able to respond to this need for unemployment compensation. On the merits of where the money comes from--i.e., the Recovery Act, which is the biggest tool we have that is trying to keep people working and employ more people--it doesn't make sense. And not making this transfer, as suggested by the underlying legislation, would imperil the State's ability to provide unemployment compensation in a labor market that is still very weak. We have to do more, and we also have to be more innovative in our approach to unemployment. One of the things my State has done with its own resources is a work- share program. Rhode Island and 17 other States are using their resources to provide WorkShare, an effective program. Essentially, it allows an employer to cut back on the number of hours a worker is engaged, and that worker would qualify for what is basically a partial unemployment check,--not the full check, so it doesn't put that much of a drain on the trust fund. Part of the conditions in Rhode Island is that the employer must maintain the benefits the workers enjoy. So it is really a win-win-win. First, people do not lose their health care because they must maintain the benefits. Second, they are still employed, so there is continuity of workers on the factory floor or in the office. Third, the pressure on the State trust fund is lessened. One of the things that is particularly appropriate to mention when it comes to this program is that it provides a big bang for the buck. Mark Zandi, an economist who is well renowned, has indicated that for every dollar of funds we put in through the unemployment system, we get $1.69 back. That makes sense. People who are getting these funds are using them right away. They are going into the economy with their other funds to buy food, to buy the necessities of life they need. This has a stimulus effect on the economy. That is another reason we have to move very aggressively. But I would like to broaden this concept of WorkShare, which has been so effective in Rhode Island, to ensure we have a system that would provide some Federal support to those States that are engaged in work share programs. Again, it is not only a very efficient program, it is very popular with industry and business in Rhode Island. I had the occasion to visit a Hope Global plant, and they have engaged in WorkShare. In fact, the number of companies in the State engaged in WorkShare has gone up dramatically, given the economic recession. At this company, I listened to a woman who worked there with her husband, and they benefitted from this program. She said, point blank: Without it, we would have lost our health care and we would have lost our home. So we can do more when it comes to flexibility and innovation with respect to unemployment. This also includes passing legislation immediately to extend unemployment insurance. Over half a million workers will exhaust their benefits by the end of September, and 1.5 million will run out of coverage by the end of the year. This is an extraordinary number of Americans, and we need to provide them the support of the unemployment system, particularly high unemployment States like Rhode Island. Also, as I indicated before, this is a way in which we cannot only moderate the crisis of unemployment for families but also to stimulate our economy. In fact, in that sense, it complements the Recovery Act. To take away funds from the Recovery Act to place into the unemployment trust fund would blunt the overall macroeconomic stimulus that we need to get this economy moving again. The unemployment levels today are unacceptable, particularly in my State of Rhode Island. It is the No. 1 concern. Related to unemployment, for many people in my State, is the concomitant loss of their health care. So we have to move aggressively on health care reform also. But we have to act, and we can act, and we should act. I urge my colleagues to reject the Ensign amendment. I yield the floor.