Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that extends the time period the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, would have to seek civil monetary penalties for securities law violations.

This legislation is necessary in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gabelli v. SEC in which the Court held that the 5 year clock to take action aginst wrongdoing starts when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In effect, Gabelli has made the SEC's job of protecting investors even tougher by shortening the amount of time that the SEC has to investigate and pursue securities law violations.

Financial fraud has evolved significantly over the years and now involves multiple parties, complex financial products, and elaborate transactions that are executed in a variety of securities markets, both domestic and foreign. As a result, many of the critical facts necessary to initiate an action may go undetected for years. Securities law violators may simply run out the clock, now with greater ease in the aftermath of Gabelli.

Couple this with the fact that while we have given the SEC even greater responsibilities, Congress, despite my ongoing efforts to urge otherwise, has not provided the agency with all the resources necessary to carry out its duties. SEC Chair White recently testified before the Banking Committee that ``if the SEC does not receive sufficient additional resources, the agency will be unable to fully build out its technology and hire the industry experts and other staff needed to oversee and police our areas of responsibility, especially in light of the expanding size and complexity of our overall regulatory space.''

To give just one example of the impact of this resource shortfall, Chair White also testified that ``in 2004, the SEC had 19 examiners per trillion dollars in investment adviser assets under management. Today, we have only 8.''

This legislation would address these challenges by giving the SEC the breathing room it needs to better police our markets and protect investors. Specifically, this bill extends the time period the SEC has to seek civil monetary penalties from five years to ten years, thereby strengthening the integrity of our markets, better protecting public investors, and empowering the SEC to investigate and pursue more securities law violators, particularly those most sophisticated at evading detection.

In so doing, the bill would align the SEC's statute of limitations with the limitations period applicable to complex civil financial fraud actions initiated pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, FIRREA. For over 2 decades, the Department of Justice has benefited from FIRREA, which allows the DOJ to seek civil penalties within a 10-year time period against persons who have committed fraud against financial institutions. The SEC, which pursues similarly complex financial fraud cases, should have the same time necessary to bring wrongdoers that violate the securities laws to justice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin and Whitehouse in introducing the Layoff Prevention Extension Act of 2014. This bill would extend the financing and grant provisions for the work sharing initiative I authored and worked to include as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Since becoming law, work sharing has helped save over 110,000 jobs, including 1,200 jobs in my State of Rhode Island, according to the Department of Labor. It has saved States $225 million by reimbursing them for work sharing benefits they paid out to workers--benefits that helped keep people on the job as employees and employers elected to reduce hours across the board instead of laying workers off.

Before my bill became law only a handful of States had work sharing programs. By tilting the incentives away from layoffs and toward work sharing a majority of states now have laws on their books. However, the 100 percent Federal financing of these work sharing benefits will expire in the summer of 2015 and the $100 million in implementation grants by the end of this year. My bill would extend both of these deadlines by one year so States with existing work sharing programs and those that are looking to enact a program can qualify for Federal support.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill to keep American workers on the job and encourage more States to enact work sharing programs that enjoy broad support in States that have adopted them and economists on both sides of the spectrum.

Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act made great strides in improving access to health insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, especially in high-cost geographic areas, some in the middle class are facing high insurance premiums.

If you make a penny over $45,960 you lose all Federal assistance for purchasing health insurance through the new exchanges. This is especially hard for individuals between the ages of 50 and 64, who are facing higher premiums but do not yet qualify for Medicare.

I have received thousands of calls and emails about access to health insurance. The high costs are a real problem. For example, Dave, one of my constituents from Livermore, CA, wrote to me to share how this policy has affected him. Dave is 60 and self-employed, making $65,000 per year. He signed up for a plan through the new health insurance exchange to cover both himself and his wife. If they made just $3,000 less per year they would have qualified for a subsidy and paid $491 for the second lowest cost silver plan. Since they are just over the threshold, the full cost of this plan is $1552. They decided to go with less robust coverage and still pay $1147 for a bronze plan. Under this legislation, Dave and his wife could get a better plan for less than half of what they pay now.

Another constituent, Dan, lives in Riverside, CA, and is 62 years old. He wrote to me and explained that his pension is just barely too high to receive help with his health insurance premiums and that he just can't afford it. Currently, the second lowest cost silver plan for Dan and his wife would be $1141 per month. Under this legislation, they would be able to afford health insurance.

The way the law is currently designed, there is a steep subsidy cliff.

This should gradually reduce, in a way that provides some help for more middle-income Americans so they pay no more than 9.5 percent their income in health insurance premiums.

The Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would do just that. This legislation extends the current subsidy up to 600 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is $68,940 for an individual. As an individual makes more, their subsidy goes down.

I am particularly concerned about older individuals who need medical care but face premiums they simply cannot afford. In California, it is estimated that approximately 360,600 individuals between the ages of 50-64 who do not qualify for Medicaid or have employer-based coverage would see premiums greater than 9.5 percent of their income. Nearly 98,000 of these are expected to remain uninsured due to the cost. This is a simple fix to improve the law that will further increase access to coverage.

The bill is paid for by a nominal increase in the federal cigarette tax, which amounts to five cents per pack.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. It is commonsense to have a gradual decline in the federal assistance for health insurance and help those who are just out of reach of affording it on their own.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act made great strides in improving access to health insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, especially in high-cost geographic areas, some in the middle class are facing high insurance premiums.

If you make a penny over $45,960 you lose all Federal assistance for purchasing health insurance through the new exchanges. This is especially hard for individuals between the ages of 50 and 64, who are facing higher premiums but do not yet qualify for Medicare.

I have received thousands of calls and emails about access to health insurance. The high costs are a real problem. For example, Dave, one of my constituents from Livermore, CA, wrote to me to share how this policy has affected him. Dave is 60 and self-employed, making $65,000 per year. He signed up for a plan through the new health insurance exchange to cover both himself and his wife. If they made just $3,000 less per year they would have qualified for a subsidy and paid $491 for the second lowest cost silver plan. Since they are just over the threshold, the full cost of this plan is $1552. They decided to go with less robust coverage and still pay $1147 for a bronze plan. Under this legislation, Dave and his wife could get a better plan for less than half of what they pay now.

Another constituent, Dan, lives in Riverside, CA, and is 62 years old. He wrote to me and explained that his pension is just barely too high to receive help with his health insurance premiums and that he just can't afford it. Currently, the second lowest cost silver plan for Dan and his wife would be $1141 per month. Under this legislation, they would be able to afford health insurance.

The way the law is currently designed, there is a steep subsidy cliff.

This should gradually reduce, in a way that provides some help for more middle-income Americans so they pay no more than 9.5 percent their income in health insurance premiums.

The Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act would do just that. This legislation extends the current subsidy up to 600 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is $68,940 for an individual. As an individual makes more, their subsidy goes down.

I am particularly concerned about older individuals who need medical care but face premiums they simply cannot afford. In California, it is estimated that approximately 360,600 individuals between the ages of 50-64 who do not qualify for Medicaid or have employer-based coverage would see premiums greater than 9.5 percent of their income. Nearly 98,000 of these are expected to remain uninsured due to the cost. This is a simple fix to improve the law that will further increase access to coverage.

The bill is paid for by a nominal increase in the federal cigarette tax, which amounts to five cents per pack.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Affordable Health Insurance for the Middle Class Act. It is commonsense to have a gradual decline in the federal assistance for health insurance and help those who are just out of reach of affording it on their own.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, 24 years ago, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I will never forget the day, July 26, 1990, the ADA was signed into law. It was one of the proudest days of my legislative career.

The ADA set forth four great goals for individuals with disabilities--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. In many ways, we have been successful in making progress toward these goals. We have increased the accessibility of our buildings, our streets, even our parks, beaches and recreation areas. We have made our books and TVs, phones, computers, and other technology more accessible. And for many Americans with disabilities, our workplaces have become increasingly more open and accessible.

America is far more inclusive, today, for individuals with disabilities. But our work is still far from complete.

According to new data released this week, almost 30 percent of people with disabilities are living in poverty, and fewer than one in three individuals with a disability participate in the workforce. This is further evidence that we are far from realizing the ADA's goal of economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities.

Today, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, released a report titled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.'' In our report, we detail many of the barriers that adversely impact the economic well-being of individuals with disabilities--including the lack of accessible transportation and the lack of accessible housing. These barriers don't only affect individuals with disabilities who are living in poverty; they also impact individuals with disabilities who are striving to reach the American dream as members of the middle class.

That is why, today, I am introducing three bills that I believe will begin to address these barriers to individuals with disabilities, S. 2887, S. 2888, and S. 2889. The first bill, the Universal Home Design Act, will increase the availability of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities. The second, the Accessible Transportation for All Act, will increase the availability of accessible passenger cars and taxis. The third, the Exercise and Fitness for All Act, will increase the availability of exercise and fitness equipment that is accessible to individuals with disabilities, which will help individuals with disabilities maintain and improve their health through appropriate physical activity.

I am confident that these three bills, along with the Community Integration Act, and the recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, will help provide the framework for a future of continued opportunities, inclusion and advancement for individuals with disabilities in America. I urge my Senate colleagues to support these important bills.

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

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

Mr. President, today, I rise to reintroduce the Incentives to Educate American Children, or I TEACH, Act of 2014. With teacher retention rates on a steady decline nationwide, it is my hope that this legislation will encourage our best and brightest teachers to remain in the classroom.

In the past two decades, the number of years of experience for the average teacher has decreased from 15 years to 5 years. Almost half of our education workforce today has less than ten years of experience. This is partly because teachers continue to be paid less than those employed in other fields, earning approximately 79 percent of the average wage of other workers with a bachelor's degree. In addition, their salaries have remained static since 2009, with the average starting salary for a new teacher estimated at just $36,141. At the same time, college debt levels continue to increase. The average student graduating in 2014 had $33,000 worth of student debt, making it difficult for young, eager graduates to pursue a career in teaching while paying down student loans and other living expenses.

No dedicated young person should have to decide that they simply cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. If passed, the I TEACH Act would invest in our most critical educators by providing a $1,000 refundable tax credit to teachers serving in rural or high poverty schools. It would also provide every teacher, regardless of school or district, the chance to earn a $1,000 refundable tax credit if they receive accreditation from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. This means that a National Board Teacher in a rural or high poverty school would be eligible to receive $2,000 in refundable tax credits.

In doing so, the I TEACH Act will provide meaningful incentives to teachers willing to serve in rural or high poverty schools, as well as rewarding quality teachers for staying in the classroom and continuing their professional development by earning National Board certification. Today, the majority of States see the value in this effort, providing some type of financial incentive to National Board certified teachers, and this refundable tax credit will work in tandem with those efforts. My home State of West Virginia, for example, offers a $3,500 bonus for National Board teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State would receive a nearly 12 percent bonus. That is a clear sign of appreciation for their hard work and a meaningful incentive to continue teaching.

Our teachers are among the most important members of our society. They inspire and educate our children, preparing the next generation for success. They deserve our respect and full support, and that is why I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact I TEACH and invest in our children's education.