Floor Statements

I rise to underscore a crucial challenge facing our Nation. There are 14 million Americans who are looking for work. Six million have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and the average length of unemployment is 40 weeks, the longest average in more than 60 years. These are dire circumstances. They must be changed, and we know how to do it. We know how to address our immediate unemployment crisis.

We must enact policies that will put Americans back to work and strengthen our economy. Congress can start by passing the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act is a blueprint for boosting our economy. It contains policies that most Americans, and virtually all economists, agree government should do in order to help our economy grow.

It would provide relief to the middle class. It would help small businesses grow and hire. It would invest in our Nation's bridges and roads and schools, help stabilize our housing market and provide aid to States so teachers and first responders can stay on the job.

Congress must also renew basic policies such as Federal unemployment compensation programs that have been a lifeline to the unemployed, their families, businesses and to States and economies throughout this Nation. If we do not extend unemployment benefits by the end of the year, 2 million Americans will lose their benefits by February 2012. This would be disastrous for them and for the local businesses that depend upon these people being able to still go out and get a cup of coffee or go out and buy the essentials of life. It would be disastrous for States that, again, depend on that type of economic activity in our national economy.

This is why I joined several of my colleagues to introduce the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011. If Federal support for unemployment benefits is not extended, the economy could lose $72 billion in economic activity, endangering up to 560,000 jobs nationwide--in my State the estimate is 2,300 jobs would be lost-- simply because we will again shrink demand as people who are relying on just getting by with an unemployment check no longer even have that-- those few dollars--to get by.

These proposals should be nonpartisan and in the past they have indeed garnered both Democratic and Republican support. Unfortunately, in the midst of the deepest and longest unemployment crisis our Nation has faced since the Great Depression, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen simply to delay and to deny the reality of millions of Americans who are looking for work, underemployed, struggling to get by day to day.

In January 2008, before the economic crisis took hold, the unemployment rate was 5 percent. It ultimately peaked at 10.1 percent nationally in October of 2009. This massive, sudden drop in employment was precipitated by one of the worst financial crises we have ever seen in the history of the country. This crisis was caused by excessive risk taking by financial institutions, lax regulations and, in the minds of so many Americans, out and out greed.

Since that 10.1-percent high of unemployment in October of 2009, the unemployment rate has trended downward, but not fast enough. The national unemployment rate has hovered around 9 percent since January of this year. The fact remains that the economy is generating more jobs than it was under the policies of President Bush, particularly in the last year of his administration, but it is still not generating enough jobs. As we saw with the most recent unemployment report, businesses are hiring despite some strong headwinds, particularly the economic dangers from Europe. In October, the economy added 80,000 jobs and the unemployment rate came down from 9.1 percent to 9 percent. That is the right direction, but not the right speed, not the right momentum, not the right response to this crisis. The economy still has 6.6 million fewer jobs than at the beginning of the 2007 recession, and the rate of job growth is, as I said, simply too slow. Adding 80,000 jobs keeps us a bit afloat, but it doesn't allow us to have the momentum to move the economy forward, which we need.

If we continue to see sluggish job growth with an average 125,000 payroll jobs added per month--and that is the pace this year--it will take us an additional 52 months--not weeks--52 months to get back to the prerecession levels of payroll employment. If we pick up job growth--say to 200,000 jobs per month, which is, again, exceeding the current pace, but not the kind of spectacular pace we need--it still will take an additional 33 months to get back to pre-Bush recession levels in employment. This persistently high unemployment rate and anemic growth have correctly been described as a national crisis.

But more important than the findings of economists and those who are studying the policy effects of this is the damage that this crisis is inflicting upon the families and communities of America. Combined with the fact that middle-class families have not seen a real increase in their family income in 10 years, and now they have seen this high unemployment, this is a double whammy. At the same time, some essentials such as food and fuel have become more expensive. We cannot overstate the difficulty that so many families are seeing: 10 years, effectively, without any real growth in their income, increased prices in essentials, and a job market that is weak, at best, although slightly improved.

That is why what we have to do here is literally get Americans back to work, to give them not only the resources but the confidence that the days ahead will be much better. This crisis requires the full attention of Congress, as well as action, not just discussion. We cannot afford further inaction. We cannot again indulge in a period of time where we were borrowing to pay for two major conflicts.

I note my predecessor from Alabama talking about the military budget. Since 2001, we have fought two major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have not raised the revenue to support those efforts. We have put them on the backs of future generations of Americans and on the backs of Americans today who are facing this job crisis. We have to work, to put people to work, to end this problem.

Unfortunately, I fear that, as I have said before, many of my Republican colleagues are simply engaged in delay, which might be politically expedient, but it is not helping the families of America.

Economists who are studying this economy, both national and international, have been emphatic that we have to put policies in place to get people back to work. Many of these policies are encapsulated in the American Jobs Act, which has been repeatedly rejected by my colleagues on the other side. They voted down two parts of the bill we pulled out, one being the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act that would have created or protected 400,000 education jobs, kept thousands of police and firefighters on the job, and helped local communities as they are struggling to keep afloat.

They also rejected the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would have made

an immediate investment of $50 billion in our highways, transit systems, railways, and aviation infrastructure. Frankly, I don't know any American in any part of this country who does not get the idea that we have to begin and continue to reinvest in our infrastructure. Every American can point to a bridge that is failing. They can point to congestion on the highways. They can point to projects that are so necessary not only for the long-term activity of the country but for the immediate employment of our citizens.

The rejection of these efforts is based on one simple fact: that we are asking the wealthiest Americans to pay for these initiatives. No longer are we going to put it on the back of future generations as we have with a decade of foreign conflicts and other programs such as the Medicare Part D expansion. We are trying to be fiscally responsible not only to propose ways to put people to work but also to pay for those measures now. That is what my colleagues object to. They seem to be more concerned about that 1 percent that is talked about than the rest of Americans who need work--not just directly, but their communities need the work so they can prosper along with the Nation.

All of this delay has been accompanied by their proposals, but their proposals always seem to rely upon austerity: We will have to cut more and more and more. But I don't think this single-minded focus on austerity is going to lead to the kind of growth we need. In fact, there are many analysts and economists who argue that the austerity measures being suggested are counterproductive to growing the economy; that, in fact, they lead to higher unemployment and lower wages.

For example, a recent IMF study talking about the consequences of pursuing an agenda focused on austerity found that an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real income by about .6 percent and raises unemployment by .5 percent. So the notion that we can simply cut our way to employment growth is not substantiated by fair-minded analysis.

For example, again, Gus Faucher of Moody Analytics examined the most recent proposal offered by my colleagues Senators McCain and Paul and said that the Republican proposal wouldn't address the causes of the current weakness in the short term and in fact it would be harmful.

The Congressional Budget Office looked at a broad range of policies from both parties and concluded that reducing taxes on business income and repatriation of foreign income are the most ineffective and inefficient tools for growing jobs. These two measures seem to lead the list of the proposals on the other side of the aisle. Also, the idea of providing more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy to create jobs is not supported by the record. Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest resulted in mediocre growth for our economy and declining wages for the middle class over the period of 2001 to 2008, 2009.

Instead of bringing forth or supporting issues that will actually put Americans to work, my colleagues on the other side want to reframe the issue. They want to talk about burdensome regulations, and this argument doesn't stand up, either.

Mr. President, let me conclude by making a point which I think is very important, because this notion of simply striking away all the regulations and we will have this miraculous growth in employment is not substantiated by careful analysis.

Since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has tracked reasons behind mass layoffs. Among the reasons an employer can cite for layoffs is ``government regulation.'' The data shows that government regulation accounted for a minuscule .2 percent of layoffs. These are the managers and leaders of these companies checking the box as to what is causing them to lay off people. Instead, employers cite a lack of demand as a reason for 39 percent of the layoffs in 2008 to 2010. Indeed, if regulations are driving unemployment, one would expect to see job losses and high unemployment rates in sectors of the economy where regulation has increased, such as the financial services sector. However, in the financial services sector, the unemployment rate is much lower than the national average. In fact, it is at 5.8 percent. Meanwhile, domestic financial firms have posted extraordinary record profits in the first two quarters of 2011. So this notion that eliminating regulations is going to miraculously solve our problems is not substantiated by the evidence we are collecting.

What we need to do is put people back to work. The programs in the American Jobs Act will do that. I hope that will be recognized and accepted so we can move quickly to pass it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to correct inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program.

Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our Nation. They are a distinct group of workers, as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status, attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies, thereby creating their ``dual-status.''

Because of their unique position, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as

a dual-status technician. This way we will retain the experience and skills of these dedicated employees.

Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, a neutral Federal agency. Dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service.

Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select.

The National Guard Technician Equity Act also corrects other inconsistencies by providing greater civilian and military retirement parity, providing eligibility to retain certain military bonuses and benefits, and increasing leave time for required military training.

I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act. I will also be working to include provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has begun to consider, and I hope my colleagues can work together on this effort.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to correct inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program.

Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our Nation. They are a distinct group of workers, as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status, attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies, thereby creating their ``dual-status.''

Because of their unique position, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as

a dual-status technician. This way we will retain the experience and skills of these dedicated employees.

Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, a neutral Federal agency. Dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service.

Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select.

The National Guard Technician Equity Act also corrects other inconsistencies by providing greater civilian and military retirement parity, providing eligibility to retain certain military bonuses and benefits, and increasing leave time for required military training.

I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act. I will also be working to include provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has begun to consider, and I hope my colleagues can work together on this effort.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator yielding, but I think the custom is that we are going back and forth, if the Senator from California would like to finish her statement.

I think if the Senator from California wishes to finish her statement and then recognize Senator Coats, that would be appropriate. That is the procedure. I think it is appropriate to alternate back and forth.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the proposal by Senator Paul to preempt the implementation of the cross-state air pollution rule.

We recognize throughout this country our extraordinary employment

challenges--in Rhode Island particularly but in every State. These are challenging times. But our focus should not be on undermining protections for the public health, rather our focus should be on job creation, as the President has suggested through his jobs act. That is what we should be doing.

This is one of a series of proposals--and I have seen many of them as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior--to essentially eviscerate the ability of the EPA to protect the health of the country and its people.

What has struck me during these debates is that we are, in a way, victims of our success. I am old enough to remember when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland was on fire because there was no control, effectively, of what was being dumped into rivers and streams throughout this country, and when clean air was something that was a sought-after goal, not a reality, in so many parts of the country.

We can look at the experience of the State of California, Senator Boxer's State. In 1976, there were regular health advisories because of the poor air. But a combination of EPA regulations and California regulations has seen the average of these health alert days in which the frail and elderly couldn't go outside, young children were advised not to play outside, and it was very difficult to put up with the smog and the congestion, fall from an average of 173 days a year--half the year--in the 1970s to about 6 days per year in the late 2000s. That wasn't an accident; that was because of effective implementation of the Clean Air Act, which, as Senator Boxer pointed out, was spearheaded by President Nixon in the 1970s. This attempt by Senator Paul is one of many attempts to reverse that progress on the assumption that things will stay the same. No, they will get much worse, actually.

This rule has been carefully evaluated. It has been through several different procedures and rulemaking processes. It has been estimated effectively and carefully that between 13,000 and 34,000 lives would be saved that would otherwise be affected and shortened because of smog and soot pollution. This rule would help avoid 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 more asthma attacks, 19,000 hospital emergency room visits, all of that tremendous health cost. And indeed the estimated yearly costs to industry of about $2 billion to $3 billion pales in comparison to the estimates of the benefits of between $120 billion to $280 billion if this rule goes into effect.

The essence of this rule effectively, though, as Senator Boxer also suggests, makes us all better neighbors. We have a 10-percent unemployment rate in Rhode Island, and we do not specialize in wine or maple syrup. We used to be a manufacturing center. Manufacturing requires electricity. We have very high electricity costs. Why? Because our State has to compensate for the pollution coming from these other States. This is a tax. The present situation, without this rule, is a tax on small business, and particularly manufacturing, in Rhode Island. We want a rule that requires the polluters to pay the full cost of their pollution, so if it is emanating from the Midwest and being transported to Rhode Island, those people creating it should be paying for it. That is the way the market should work. We are paying for it. We are effectively subsidizing lower electricity rates in parts of this country that are taking jobs from Rhode Island. It is not only unfair, it is bad policy.

In Rhode Island specifically, only 5 percent of ozone pollution is from local or instate sources--5 percent. Ninety-five percent comes from outside of our borders, particularly the Midwest. It is transported. That is at the heart of this rule--to give us a chance not only to protect ourselves and to control our own pollution but to not be subject to the additional cost as this pollution moves across the country.

We are in a situation where we are essentially being imposed upon dramatically, and this rule will try to strike the proper balance. It will try to incentivize those producers of pollution to prevent the pollution. It will let us be more competitive. It will allow us to go ahead and essentially have a much more level playing field when it comes to what we are all talking about: creating jobs.

It is awfully tough to go up to Rhode Island and look at businesses that are making progress and being told that one of the key costs is electricity and one of the key factors driving up those costs is all of the pollution control that we have to put in place, not because of what we are generating, but because 95 percent of our pollution is coming from other States.

This rule makes sense in every dimension, and I think to undercut this rule would do a great injustice to the health of the American public and the economic potential of States throughout this country.

Let me say something else too. I think we often see this erroneously as a one-sided cost: Oh, these polluters, these utilities are going to have to put all of these controls on. Well, guess what, they are hiring skilled American workers to put in place products that I hope are produced in America. All that contributes to our economy.

So for many different reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is efficient. It is effective. It will actually help our economy. It will certainly help the quality of life for Americans in those States that are suffering from the pollution of other States, and that are essentially paying for the pollution of States throughout the country. If the winds were blowing another way, I daresay many of my colleagues would be standing up and arguing exactly the opposite.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to return to morning business.

Mr. President, let me also commend Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin and Senator Alexander because I too am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I think it does represent a remarkably thoughtful and bipartisan approach to the problem of providing resources to local States and communities so they can carry out the very challenging issues of local governments. I am not surprised that Senator Alexander is a key element in this product. Both Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin deserve to be complimented. I thank them for their leadership.

Mr. President, I rise specifically to speak in strong support of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. This legislation incorporates key components of the American Jobs Act and other bipartisan proposals designed to help veterans find jobs, including the Hiring Heroes Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. These are commonsense policies that Congress can and should pass immediately.

We are in the midst of an unemployment crisis that is obvious to every American, and it is a growing problem that is sapping not only our economic strength but indeed our sense of national purpose and our morale. The national unemployment rate has been hovering around 9 percent, and that means 14 million Americans are looking for work in one of the toughest economies since the Great Depression. But what is unfortunate--some might

even say shameful--is that almost 1 million of those Americans looking for work are veterans returning home after valiantly serving our country. The unemployment rate for veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq is an indefensible 12.1 percent. It represents a significant blow to young men and women who are returning home after serving their country in very difficult circumstances. In 2010, 36 percent of Afghanistan and Iraq-era veterans were unemployed for longer than 26 weeks. Again, that is a shameful statistic.

This unfortunate trend is mirrored in my home State of Rhode Island. We have a very high unemployment rate--10.5 percent, one of the highest in the Nation. We have been unfortunately in that category for almost 2 years now. But for veterans, the rate is 11.1 percent. They are doing even worse than other nonveterans in the unemployment category. That is one more reason, by the way, that we should extend the unemployment compensation legislation that is so necessary. I have joined Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Levin, Merkley, and Gillibrand, and we have proposed to do this with the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011. We still have people coming back from Afghanistan; we still have people who are holding on to a job but very well might lose it. They need these benefits, and if we don't pass this legislation, then beginning next January, there is a very real possibility that they will not be able to get these benefits which are so essential.

We have to work together. I think it is a very good example of the work Senator Enzi, Senator Alexander, Senator Durbin, myself, and others have done with respect to this legislation on sales tax. But we have to work across the aisle, particularly for our American veterans, but also for American workers throughout this country.

Again today we have a component of the American Jobs Act before us. This bill is focused on veterans, but the jobs act overall should be passed. We have argued for it endlessly, because it will put Americans to work, it is fully paid for, and it will be an investment in our infrastructure and in other programs that are long-term needs of this Nation.

This particular legislation before us targeted at veterans would provide incentives for businesses to hire these veterans, including a tax credit of $2,400 for hiring a veteran who has been unemployed for more than 4 weeks but less than 6 months, a $5,600 tax credit for hiring a veteran who has been looking for a job for more than 6 months, and a $9,600 tax credit for hiring veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job more than 6 months. These incentives will help veterans secure employment and they should be passed immediately.

These veterans deserve our help as they transition from their military service to their civilian careers. They have incredible skills of leadership, of diligence, of dedication, of self-discipline that add to their technical skills and make them incredibly important for the growth of our economy, and they have to have the opportunity to use these skills for the benefit of their communities, as they did to defend their country. This legislation provides that critical assistance.

It has other aspects to it. First, it would provide opportunities for military personnel who are leaving active service for transitional assistance to be able to participate in workshops sponsored by the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The workshops will help them write resumes, receive career counseling, and other things.

Second, it expands education and training opportunities for older unemployed veterans by essentially providing an additional year of Montgomery GI bill benefits for use at community colleges and technical schools. It also allows servicemembers to begin to seek civilian jobs in the Federal Government prior to formally separating from their military service.

Earlier this week I was with the President when we announced these initiatives and more. After that visit to the Rose Garden, I went to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda to visit those young men and women who have served and who are now wounded warriors. Trust me, their spirit is undeterred, as is their commitment to their country. We owe them much more than we can ever repay, and the first payment of that huge debt is passing immediately--this week--this legislation to help our veterans. So as we celebrate Veterans Day with speeches, we will have a real accomplishment to bring to the American people and the veterans who serve and defend us today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Rebuild America Jobs Act because it responds to two critical needs: the jobs crisis we face throughout this country and the need to improve our national infrastructure, which is obvious to everyone, in every part of this country.

Over the 4 years of this economic crisis, the unemployment rate in Rhode Island has been one of the highest in the Nation. It now stands at 10.5 percent. For many families, it has been a stressful and demoralizing time. Very few have avoided the impacts of this economic crisis in their own lives or in the life of someone close to them.

It has been particularly devastating for those involved in construction, a sector where more than 2 million Americans, including 7,000 Rhode Islanders, have lost their jobs since 2007. It is frustrating for these workers because all around them they can see the need to maintain and improve our infrastructure, which, by the way, is essential to the free-flow of commerce and the economic prosperity of the country going forward. Indeed, all of us, regardless of our economic status, benefit from a sound transportation system.

A few weeks ago, Senator Whitehouse and I joined Rhode Island transportation officials at the Providence Viaduct. This is a 1,300- foot stretch of Interstate 95 that runs directly through the heart of Providence, RI, our capital city. It connects New York and Boston and the whole north-south highway system on the east coast. It is one of 155 bridges in our State alone that have been found to be structurally deficient. It must be replaced within the next few years. It no longer can be repaired time and time again; it has to be replaced. If it is not replaced, then traffic will have to be rerouted, which will have a major impact on our economy and the regional economy. Route 95 is the highway link between New York City and Boston. If suddenly you put up a roadblock in that highway link and restrict traffic to one lane, you are going to see economic activity throughout the Northeast affected. Already, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation has installed wooden planks beneath the viaduct to catch any concrete or debris before it falls on cars and pedestrians below. That is an example of the first signs of the increasing decay. This is the kind of commonsense project this jobs bill addresses, but it is not the only one.

Indeed, 21 percent of Rhode Island's bridges are listed as structurally deficient, while nearly 30 percent are functionally obsolete. There is a huge amount of work that we can do to improve existing conditions that make us more productive going forward. For Rhode Islanders, passing this jobs bill would translate into approximately $141 million of highway funding to help us respond to these obvious needs. Moreover, it would provide approximately $21 million in transit funding, which would provide a real shot in the arm to help maintain an efficient public transportation system. We take pride in that. We have a statewide transportation system. It is oriented around our bus system. It travels the length and breadth of the State. It is very efficient, but it needs support, and this bill would help provide that support.

The bill would also provide funding for airport improvements, which could help Rhode Island's major airport, T.F. Green Airport, with a major runway safety and expansion project. This project would make air travel not only safer, but it would make our airport more capable of intercontinental and international service. Right now we don't have that effective option. If we did, that would be a huge multiplier for our economy, and it is based on sound infrastructure improvement.

These are not new, novel techniques or new, advanced technologies. This is old-fashioned extending a runway, fixing a bridge, getting the economy moving again. Everyone understands that. Everyone on Main Street and East Street and South Street and West Street in every corner of this country understands that, and we have always done it, and this bill will help us do it.

Finally, the bill establishes a national infrastructure bank, which I believe can play a critical role in financing these projects going forward. These projects would include clean water projects, energy projects, as well as transportation projects. There is absolutely no doubt that these investments in infrastructure will benefit our economy.

According to economist Mark Zandi, every dollar invested in these types of projects will generate approximately $1.59 in economic activity, so there is a significant multiplier effect. Importantly, it is part of getting us moving again and building up a self-sustaining momentum. Again, these projects will employ private companies that will hire individuals in all of our home States to begin the work that must be done to improve our infrastructure, to provide the kind of vital transportation links that are critical to any economy. It is also very important to know that this proposal is fully paid for, and you have both business and labor supporting the investments in the bill.

I would hope we could all join together in a sign of not just common unity but common sense and adopt this provision. Build infrastructure. It is paid for, and it puts people to work. That is what the American public is asking us to do and we should do it.

I want to comment briefly on the Republican alternative proposal. It fails to provide the investment to deal with the infrastructure and the job crisis we face today. In fact, it does the opposite. It effectively cuts $40 billion in discretionary funding without addressing the needs of our highway trust fund and other infrastructure improvement vehicles.

More importantly, it scales back important public health protections under the EPA. The Republican package includes the so-called EPA Regulatory Relief Act, the REINS Act, and the Regulatory Time-Out Act. Together these provisions not only threaten our economic progress but also our public health, and they would nullify the EPA boiler rule. This rule has been calculated to produce $10 to $24 in health benefits for every dollar spent, at least a 10-to-1 ratio of health benefits versus dollar spent, preventing approximately 6,600 premature deaths and about 40,000 asthma attacks each year.

This translates, again, into another major crisis we face, and that is an affordable health care system. One way to make the health care system affordable is to prevent premature deaths, asthma attacks, and a host of other things, and that is not incidental to what environmental protection does. That is at the heart of environmental protection.

Finally, it would place a moratorium on most regulations, including financial regulations. We have seen, sadly to our chagrin, the effect of lax regulation in 2008 when our financial markets were on the verge of collapse. Unless we have effective regulation, unless we can effectively deploy the new tool provided under the Dodd-Frank act, unless we can resource regulators to keep a watchful eye on the marketplace, frankly, we are going to once again relive those very dark and daunting days of 2008 when we saw markets on the verge of collapse. And we do so, frankly, in a global economic environment where there are pressures coming from Europe and pressures coming from around the globe, economic pressures. If our markets are not strong and well regulated, can they withstand the backwash from a crisis in Greece, a crisis in Italy, a crisis across the globe?

I do believe the legislation that has been proposed by Leader Reid-- proposed essentially by the President--makes sense, and I hope we can unite in common purpose to do what is common sense and invest in bridges and roads in America, fully paid for, and avoid the diversion of this alternate proposal that would essentially impair our health, the public health of America, and not advance our financial stability as a nation.

I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to John Hardiman, public defender for the State of Rhode Island, who passed away several days ago.

John was, frankly, the finest public servant I have ever seen in my entire

career, as a soldier, as an elected official. I have never encountered anyone with the dedication, decency, and the determination of John Hardiman. He literally devoted his life to the office of public defender in the State of Rhode Island.

He graduated from law school in 1982. He started as a staff attorney there, worked his way up to the head of trial division, and then became the public defender for the entire State of Rhode Island.

His life was devoted to the law. Quietly, persistently, with diligence, dedication, and decency, he sought to do justice--justice not to the powerful or privileged but for the powerless. Indeed, in many cases, his clients were not only notorious; they were infamous. But John knew the test of our ideals, the test of our legal system, and of our constitutional form of government was that the laws would not simply protect the powerful and privileged, but that they protect all Americans.

Above the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' For many people, even lawyers, those are just words. For John Hardiman, it was his life's vocation, and he made real those words in the lives of every Rhode Islander.

John was a tenacious advocate, but he was always a remarkably modest and decent man. His legal skills rested on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity and decency. He dedicated his life to serving others. In that advocation and vocation, he was following the example of his father, Dr. James Hardiman, and his mother. They left John a shining example of compassion and concern, a generous spirit, and a humble heart. All his brothers and sisters follow that same example as they, too, in their lives served others.

I had the privilege of growing up with John. He was one of the little kids in school, about 5 years younger, but he always had the reputation--entirely justified--of being a good kid. Where I come from, being a good kid was the highest form of praise. That good kid turned out to be an extraordinary man, advocate, and public servant. This is a poignant moment for me because I recall the many times I saw him throughout his life and my life, as a young student in grammar school, as an athlete similar to his brothers, as a lawyer, as a public defender, as a public servant. He was someone whom you were always glad to see, and those types of individuals are rare and precious, indeed.

John's passing diminishes all of us, especially his family. But his life has touched the lives of every Rhode Islander. Many will never recognize what he has done. But in standing for justice and for the rule of law and for the rights of those who are in the shadows, he stood for all of us, nobly, decently, with a proud spirit but a gentle spirit also. We have all been diminished, but what he has done for us has made us stronger and better and more ready to go on to take up his work. His example will sustain us and inspire us as we go forward, as we try to finish his noble work.

I wish to especially extend my condolences to his children, Elizabeth and Emmett, and to all his family. Rhode Island has lost an extraordinary public servant, an extraordinary gentleman. But we are better for having known him, we are better for having him serve us so well, so courageously, so decently.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011 to ensure that millions of unemployed Americans will not lose desperately needed unemployment benefits and to provide relief to states and employers that are facing automatic penalties for overdrawing on their unemployment insurance trust fund during the worst unemployment crisis in modern history. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Durbin, Whitehouse and Levin.

Fourteen million Americans are looking for work and the average length of unemployment is 40 weeks. Rhode Island has endured especially high and persistent rates of unemployment. If Congress fails to extend unemployment benefits or if benefits lapse for as little as a month-- 10,000 Rhode Islanders and 2 million Americans nationwide will fall through the safety-net and lose benefits. This would have far reaching impacts on families, communities, and businesses. It would seriously endanger our economic recovery as a whole.

The legislation would continue funding for the Federal unemployment programs for jobless workers through 2012 by extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program and making improvements to the Extended Benefits Program.

The bill will also provide relief for States and employers that have been hit the hardest by our unemployment crisis and whose unemployment trust funds have been subjected to historic levels of stress by providing a 1 year moratorium on interest payments for States and tax relief for employers in States with outstanding unemployment trust fund loans.

Requiring States to make such interest repayments now, at a time when they face massive budget deficits and the economy is still weak does not make economic sense. Nor does requiring businesses to pay an additional tax of $21 per employee for the 2011 tax year.

This bill would provide immediate relief and certainty to 23 States with outstanding loans and all of their employers facing automatic tax increases that are otherwise set to be assessed as soon as January 31, 2012.

For States that have remained solvent during this crisis, they would receive a 2 percent interest bonus on trust fund reserves. This reflects the need to start moving in the direction of replenishing and maintaining solvent unemployment trust funds, which is why I joined Senator Durbin in introducing the Unemployment Insurance Solvency Act earlier this year.

Unfortunately, today's legislation is necessary because Republicans have blocked passage of the President's American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act proposed extending the EUC and EB programs along with incorporating several important reforms to the Ul system. These reforms would provide enhanced assistance to the long-term unemployed in their job search and ensure benefits are being administered properly. Indeed, as we look to extend unemployment benefits to those who have been harmed by this economy through no fault of their own and aid States and employers, we must be mindful to enhance the integrity of the unemployment system and prevent improper payments, which hurt taxpayers and ultimately erode benefits for those

that are most in need. It is my hope that Congress and States, which are responsible for administering these programs, continue to improve the integrity and functioning of our Ul system.

We know what policies will strengthen our recovery. Extending benefits and addressing solvency are among them and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011 to ensure that millions of unemployed Americans will not lose desperately needed unemployment benefits and to provide relief to states and employers that are facing automatic penalties for overdrawing on their unemployment insurance trust fund during the worst unemployment crisis in modern history. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Durbin, Whitehouse and Levin.

Fourteen million Americans are looking for work and the average length of unemployment is 40 weeks. Rhode Island has endured especially high and persistent rates of unemployment. If Congress fails to extend unemployment benefits or if benefits lapse for as little as a month-- 10,000 Rhode Islanders and 2 million Americans nationwide will fall through the safety-net and lose benefits. This would have far reaching impacts on families, communities, and businesses. It would seriously endanger our economic recovery as a whole.

The legislation would continue funding for the Federal unemployment programs for jobless workers through 2012 by extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program and making improvements to the Extended Benefits Program.

The bill will also provide relief for States and employers that have been hit the hardest by our unemployment crisis and whose unemployment trust funds have been subjected to historic levels of stress by providing a 1 year moratorium on interest payments for States and tax relief for employers in States with outstanding unemployment trust fund loans.

Requiring States to make such interest repayments now, at a time when they face massive budget deficits and the economy is still weak does not make economic sense. Nor does requiring businesses to pay an additional tax of $21 per employee for the 2011 tax year.

This bill would provide immediate relief and certainty to 23 States with outstanding loans and all of their employers facing automatic tax increases that are otherwise set to be assessed as soon as January 31, 2012.

For States that have remained solvent during this crisis, they would receive a 2 percent interest bonus on trust fund reserves. This reflects the need to start moving in the direction of replenishing and maintaining solvent unemployment trust funds, which is why I joined Senator Durbin in introducing the Unemployment Insurance Solvency Act earlier this year.

Unfortunately, today's legislation is necessary because Republicans have blocked passage of the President's American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act proposed extending the EUC and EB programs along with incorporating several important reforms to the Ul system. These reforms would provide enhanced assistance to the long-term unemployed in their job search and ensure benefits are being administered properly. Indeed, as we look to extend unemployment benefits to those who have been harmed by this economy through no fault of their own and aid States and employers, we must be mindful to enhance the integrity of the unemployment system and prevent improper payments, which hurt taxpayers and ultimately erode benefits for those

that are most in need. It is my hope that Congress and States, which are responsible for administering these programs, continue to improve the integrity and functioning of our Ul system.

We know what policies will strengthen our recovery. Extending benefits and addressing solvency are among them and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and pressing for action on this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation for the creation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Senators Whitehouse, Kerry, and Scott Brown. Our legislation seeks to preserve the industrial heritage and natural and cultural resources of the Blackstone Valley, help provide economic development opportunities for the local economies, and build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor.

Samuel Slater built his mill in 1793 and started the American Industrial Revolution in Rhode Island along the Blackstone River. Today, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor contains an exceptional concentration of surviving mills and villages that illustrate this chapter of American history.

The Blackstone Valley is a national treasure, which also includes thousands of acres of beautiful, undeveloped land and waterways that are home to diverse wildlife.

The extensive work of the National Park Service and the tireless efforts of Federal, State--both Rhode Island and Massachusetts--and local officials, developers, and volunteers have resulted in the recovery of dozens of historic villages, riverways, and rural landscapes throughout the Corridor. These types of economic redevelopment and environmental restoration efforts reflect the ongoing story of the Blackstone River and the valley.

The Ashton Mill in Cumberland is one such example of local redevelopment. With the designation of the National Heritage Corridor, the cleanup of the Blackstone River, the creation of the Blackstone River State Park in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the construction of the Blackstone River Bikeway, the property was restored for adaptive reuse as rental apartments. Once again the mill and its village are a vital part of the greater Blackstone Valley community.

Great progress has also been made in restoring the environmental resources of the river valley. As a result, people are once again enjoying the river, whether in kayaks or canoes, or through other means. I have been pleased over the years to help support the preservation and renewed development of the Blackstone River Valley.

In 2005, I cosponsored legislation introduced by my then-colleague Senator Lincoln Chafee to conduct a Special Resource Study of the Corridor to determine which areas within the Corridor were nationally significant and whether they were suitable to become part of the National Park Service. When it was released this July, the study recommended the creation of a new national historic park whose boundaries would encompass both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, including the Blackstone River and its tributaries; the Blackstone Canal; the historic districts of Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket; the villages of Slatersville and Ashton in Rhode Island; and the villages of Whitinsville and Hopedale in Massachusetts.

The partnership park described in the Special Resource Study clearly stated the importance of the rural and urban areas, the landscape, and the river in telling the story of the Blackstone River Valley.

It will build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the workers and volunteers in all the surrounding communities, in restoring the Corridor.

Designating these areas as a national historical park has important economic, environmental, historical, and educational benefits for the region. This is a two state initiative, and truly a national initiative, that will embrace both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and ensure the preservation of the industrial and natural heritage of the Blackstone River Valley for future generations to enjoy.

Establishing a national park will provide opportunities for work, opportunities for recreation, and opportunities to boost economic development, while memorializing the history of this place and its role in the American Industrial Revolution.

The partnerships between the federal, state, local, and private organizations have a proven track record of success with the Corridor, and I expect that the communities in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that have been engaged on this endeavor for many years will continue to partner with the National Park Service going forward.

Creating a national historic park sets a clear path to preserve our cultural heritage, improve the use and enjoyment of these resources, including offering outdoor education for young people, and increase the level of protection for our most important and nationally significant cultural and natural resources.

I have been proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation in honor of my late-colleague John H. Chafee, who years ago had a great vision, shared with many others in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to preserve and protect the Blackstone Valley.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to create the John H.

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation for the creation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, along with my colleagues from Rhode Island and Massachusetts, Senators Whitehouse, Kerry, and Scott Brown. Our legislation seeks to preserve the industrial heritage and natural and cultural resources of the Blackstone Valley, help provide economic development opportunities for the local economies, and build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor.

Samuel Slater built his mill in 1793 and started the American Industrial Revolution in Rhode Island along the Blackstone River. Today, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor contains an exceptional concentration of surviving mills and villages that illustrate this chapter of American history.

The Blackstone Valley is a national treasure, which also includes thousands of acres of beautiful, undeveloped land and waterways that are home to diverse wildlife.

The extensive work of the National Park Service and the tireless efforts of Federal, State--both Rhode Island and Massachusetts--and local officials, developers, and volunteers have resulted in the recovery of dozens of historic villages, riverways, and rural landscapes throughout the Corridor. These types of economic redevelopment and environmental restoration efforts reflect the ongoing story of the Blackstone River and the valley.

The Ashton Mill in Cumberland is one such example of local redevelopment. With the designation of the National Heritage Corridor, the cleanup of the Blackstone River, the creation of the Blackstone River State Park in Lincoln, Rhode Island, and the construction of the Blackstone River Bikeway, the property was restored for adaptive reuse as rental apartments. Once again the mill and its village are a vital part of the greater Blackstone Valley community.

Great progress has also been made in restoring the environmental resources of the river valley. As a result, people are once again enjoying the river, whether in kayaks or canoes, or through other means. I have been pleased over the years to help support the preservation and renewed development of the Blackstone River Valley.

In 2005, I cosponsored legislation introduced by my then-colleague Senator Lincoln Chafee to conduct a Special Resource Study of the Corridor to determine which areas within the Corridor were nationally significant and whether they were suitable to become part of the National Park Service. When it was released this July, the study recommended the creation of a new national historic park whose boundaries would encompass both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, including the Blackstone River and its tributaries; the Blackstone Canal; the historic districts of Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket; the villages of Slatersville and Ashton in Rhode Island; and the villages of Whitinsville and Hopedale in Massachusetts.

The partnership park described in the Special Resource Study clearly stated the importance of the rural and urban areas, the landscape, and the river in telling the story of the Blackstone River Valley.

It will build upon the solid foundation of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor and the workers and volunteers in all the surrounding communities, in restoring the Corridor.

Designating these areas as a national historical park has important economic, environmental, historical, and educational benefits for the region. This is a two state initiative, and truly a national initiative, that will embrace both Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and ensure the preservation of the industrial and natural heritage of the Blackstone River Valley for future generations to enjoy.

Establishing a national park will provide opportunities for work, opportunities for recreation, and opportunities to boost economic development, while memorializing the history of this place and its role in the American Industrial Revolution.

The partnerships between the federal, state, local, and private organizations have a proven track record of success with the Corridor, and I expect that the communities in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that have been engaged on this endeavor for many years will continue to partner with the National Park Service going forward.

Creating a national historic park sets a clear path to preserve our cultural heritage, improve the use and enjoyment of these resources, including offering outdoor education for young people, and increase the level of protection for our most important and nationally significant cultural and natural resources.

I have been proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation in honor of my late-colleague John H. Chafee, who years ago had a great vision, shared with many others in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, to preserve and protect the Blackstone Valley.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to create the John H.

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park.

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

Mr. President, I wish to join Chairman Levin in his plea that we be allowed to consider this legislation. The greatest crisis we face in the United States, for families all across the country, is jobs. The President has proposed a bill that is going to help us begin to deal with that job crisis, and he proposed a way to pay for it. An overwhelming portion of the country, the polling is definite, supports the President's proposal and our proposal, as modified by Senator Reid, to have a surcharge on individuals making over $1 million.

So we have a bill that responds to the greatest need, that is paid for by doing what the American people overwhelmingly want us to do, and we cannot get it on the floor for debate, for amendment, and finally for passage. We are not able to respond to this crisis because we have been frustrated by our colleagues who refuse to let us take up the bill. The American people are demanding we act--the message is being sent far and wide in many different mediums--and we get it directly from home, and it is: Do something. It might not be perfect. It might not solve the problem immediately. But do something. Do not just stop debate, stop progress, stop discussion on the issues that are so critical to this country.

Again, we are in a serious jobs crisis. We have seen the latest job report showing some sort of improvement but not enough, and we have to do more. If we do not pass the American Jobs Act, then we are going to be in a situation where--and this is one of the great ironies--the deficit will get worse, not better. One of the most direct ways to begin to deal with the deficit is to put people to work so they can resume their participation in the economic life of this country and contribute not only to their own well-being and that of their family but the growth of the country, and the robustness of our economy. In that way, we can address the deficit.

So this refusal to act does not even serve the goal of deficit reduction. Again, I wish to emphasize this: We have a bill that has measures in it that are proven, that are bipartisan, that will put people to work, and that are fully paid for by a tax that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. If we do not act, the jobs crisis and our deficit will persist.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since World War II the United States has traded away American jobs in the name of foreign policy by entering into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

With a 9.1 percent national unemployment rate, 14 million Americans looking for work, and 10.6 percent unemployment in Rhode Island, there are no more jobs to give. As such, I cannot support these trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama that the Senate is considering today.

I am not convinced these trade deals will result in net job growth for the United States. The International Trade Commission's analysis of the agreements finds negligible changes to aggregate employment and output. Analysis from The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Korea FTA would lead to a loss of 159,000 jobs--much of this in the manufacturing sector. It must be stressed that, according to these analyses, any potential job gains associated with increases in American exports will be offset by job losses resulting from increased imports to the United States.

Moreover, as a recent economic study has shown, my State is one of the most susceptible to labor-intensive imports. And as the International Trade Commission's sector analysis of these free trade agreements found, industries that are based in Rhode Island align with those foreign industries that will have the most access to U.S. markets. I am very concerned that Rhode Island businesses will feel the brunt of this import pressure while realizing little of the potential gains from exports.

It is likely that U.S. job losses associated with the Korea FTA will be disproportionately felt in Rhode Island, particularly in the textile sector. The nature of the agreement and the change in tariff schedules pick clear winners and losers. U.S. agriculture and passenger vehicles will be winners, while manufacturing industries central to my State like textiles will be losers. I have heard from Rhode Island businesses opposed to the Korea agreement for this very reason.

I, also, have serious reservations about the Colombian and Panama agreements. These agreements will have a relatively small impact on the U.S. economy, but present basic questions of accountability. Colombia has one of the highest rates of anti-union violence in the world. Panama has its own duty free zone and there are concerns about whether there are enough resources being dedicated to deter illegal transshipment of goods, which could lead to other nations taking advantage of our trade agreement with Panama by skirting customs and violating ``rules of origin'' requirements. Additionally, despite Panama's recent tax information exchange agreement, questions remain about the degree to which transparency and bank secrecy laws will continue to be obstacles to enforcing U.S. tax law.

Both Colombia and Panama have made efforts to correct these issues. However, the results of these efforts are not clear and more work remains to be done to ensure that accountability is built into the system.

I do want to stress that my opposition to these agreements is not meant to undercut the good work of our partners and allies in Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Korea is one of our most vital partners in Asia and a democracy that shares our values. Colombia is an important Latin American ally that has made enormous progress in strengthening the rule of law and combating extremist organizations and drug traffickers. And the United States has a singular relationship with Panama that has progressively strengthened over time.

However, at this time, I think we should stop and pause and think about our domestic needs and how to get our economy back on track. The United States needs to enter into trade agreements that will unequivocally benefit Americans workers--these trade deals do not. So, I will vote against the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements, and continue working to find a better way to promote bilateral trade that will lead to job growth here at home.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Effective Teaching and Leading Act to foster the development of highly skilled and effective educators.

We are working towards reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--ESEA--this Congress for the first time since 2001. One of my highest priorities for reauthorization is to build the capacity of our Nation's schools to enhance the effectiveness of teachers, principals, school librarians, and other school leaders.

Decades of research have demonstrated that improving educator and principal quality as well as greater family involvement are the keys to raising student achievement and turning around struggling schools. To strengthen teaching and school leadership, the Effective Teaching and Leading Act would amend Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, to provide targeted assistance to schools to develop and support effective teachers, school librarians, principals, and school leaders through implementation of comprehensive induction, professional development, and evaluation systems.

Every year across the country thousands of teachers leave the profession--many within their first years of teaching. A report by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future has estimated that the nationwide cost of replacing public school teachers who have dropped out of the profession is $7.3 billion annually.

Fortunately, we have some proven strategies to support teachers that will keep them in our schools. Evidence has shown that providing new teachers with comprehensive mentoring and support during their two years reduces teacher attrition by as much as half and increases student learning gains. The Effective Teaching and Leading Act would help schools implement the key elements of effective multi-year mentoring and induction for beginning teachers.

The bill also significantly revises ESEA's current definition of ``professional development'' to foster an ongoing culture of teacher, principal, school librarian, and staff collaboration throughout schools. All too often current professional development still consists of isolated, check-the-box activities instead of helping educators engage in sustained professional learning that is regularly evaluated for its impact on classroom practice and student achievement. Effective professional development is collaborative, job-embedded, and data- driven.

It is also clear that evaluation systems have an important role to play in teacher and principal development. Through Race to the Top and other initiatives many states and school systems are focusing on reforming their evaluation systems. When evaluation is done right, it provides teachers and principals with individualized ongoing feedback on their strengths and weaknesses and offers a path to improvement. The Effective Teaching and Leading Act would require school districts to establish rigorous, fair, and transparent evaluation systems that use multiple measures, including growth in student achievement.

Principals and school leaders also have a critical role to play in leading school improvement efforts and managing a collaborative culture of ongoing professional learning and development. Research has shown that leadership is second only to classroom instruction among school- related factors that influence student outcomes. As such, this bill would provide ongoing high-quality professional development to principals and school leaders, including multi-year induction and mentoring for new administrators.

Recognizing the importance of creating career advancement and leadership opportunities for teachers, the Effective Teaching and Leading Act supports opportunities for teachers to serve as mentors, instructional coaches, or master teachers, or take on increased responsibility for professional development, curriculum, or school improvement activities and calls for significant and sustainable stipends for teachers that take on these new roles and responsibilities.

The bill also addresses working conditions that are so critical for effective teaching. Under the legislation, districts would conduct surveys of the working and learning conditions educators face so this data could be used to better target investments and support.

Improving teaching and school leadership is not simply a matter of sorting the good teachers and principals from the bad. What is needed is a comprehensive and integrated approach that supports new teachers and leaders as they enter the profession; provides on-going professional development that helps them improve and their students to achieve; and that fairly assesses performance and provides feedback for improvement. This is the approach taken by the Effective Teaching and Leading Act.

I worked with a range of education organizations in developing this bill, including the American Federation of Teachers; American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; Learning Forward; and the New Teacher Center. I thank them for their input and support for the bill.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Effective Teaching and Leading Act and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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