Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Baba, a detailee on the Finance Committee, be allowed on the Senate floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman for his very clear and thoughtful conduct of these hearings with respect to Dr. Carter. The reason we are here today on the verge of a very strong vote for Dr. Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense is due to the contribution that Chairman McCain has made to this process, which was extremely thoughtful and bipartisan. I thank him again for that.

Mr. President, I join Senator McCain, and I not only commend him for his leadership but I also wish to express my strong support for the nomination of Dr. Ashton Carter to be the 25th Secretary of Defense. Dr. Carter is uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense at a time when--as Henry Kissinger recently said in a hearing before the Armed Services Committee--``the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.''

Dr. Carter was born and raised in Philadelphia. He received a bachelor's degree in physics and medieval history from Yale and a doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

During his career, Dr. Carter has already held three critical positions in the Department of Defense: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global and Strategic Affairs in the Clinton administration; Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from 2009 to 2011; and most recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2011 to 2013. He is well aware of, and has already been deeply immersed in, many of the significant challenges facing this Nation and the Defense Department.

As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter was a critical player in the discussions and decision making on a myriad of international issues--issues that will continue to need the close attention in his tenure as Secretary of Defense.

I wish to name just a few. While the Secretary of Defense is not a party to the negotiations relating to Iran's nuclear program, the Secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential contingencies. In the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, the consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and generations to come, and the Secretary

of Defense will be intimately involved in shaping the reaction.

Another area of deep concern is ISIL. Their violent campaign in Iraq and Syria to establish an extremist caliphate threatens to erase borders, destabilize the region, and create a breeding ground for foreign fighters willing to return to the West to carry out attacks against the United States and our allies. The Department must provide critical leadership in a coalition effort that includes Arab and Muslim States to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL while being careful to ensure that the United States does not end up, as Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Brzezinski indicated to us in a hearing before the committee, ``owning'' some of these conflicts in Syria and elsewhere.

In Afghanistan the hard-won gains of the past decade are significant but remain fragile. As the Afghan National Security Forces continue taking over responsibilities to secure Afghanistan, the United States and coalition forces have transitioned to a more limited mission of training and assisting the Afghan forces and conducting counterterrorism operations. Yet it remains to be seen whether conditions on the ground in Afghanistan will improve sufficiently by the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the current plan. Dr. Carter's participation in evaluating that plan will be absolutely critical.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has raised tensions in Europe to a level not seen in decades. Recently separatists in eastern Ukraine, with substantial Russian equipment, training, and leadership, have abandoned any pretext of a cease-fire, although there were discussions that were held overnight that perhaps might indicate a cease-fire. But in any case, the United States must determine the best way to support the Ukrainian people and their forces in defending their country.

Political instability in Yemen has caused the United States to evacuate its Embassy and created a vacuum, allowing the free reign of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is intent on striking the United States and its interests. Again, the Defense Department plays a key role in supporting our partners in Yemen and navigating the complex political situation and continuing to have a presence there--which they do--which can effectively help to preempt any attempt to use that as a launching pad for operations in the region or across the globe.

The same brand of violent extremism in the Middle East can also be found in parts of Africa--al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Countering the threat posed by these groups will require building partner capacity and enabling support to foreign security forces at a time when resources are scarce and those capabilities are in high demand.

In North Korea, Kim Jong Un's regime has increased tensions on the peninsula with his provocative and belligerent behavior. The recent cyber attack on Sony is just the latest in a string of destabilizing actions. The regime is playing a dangerous game that could have disastrous consequences--especially for its own civilian population which has already suffered untold hardships and deprivation under his leadership. The North Korean regime is painting itself into a corner where it will be left with few friends and few options, and again, the United States, and particularly the Department of Defense, must be ever vigilant.

While the United States and China have many areas of coordination and cooperation, our future relationship remains uncertain. We welcome the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China. Especially in this new century of global commerce and economies, a prosperous China is not only in the region's best interests but also in the world's best interest. China's increasingly controversial claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea and dangerous altercations with its neighbors raise serious concerns. While legal and peaceful avenues for dispute resolution are available, China has instead chosen to pursue, in too many cases, adversarial and unilateral actions that raise questions about its intentions.

On the cyber front, China is engaged in massive theft of U.S. intellectual property from American industry and government, which threatens our technological edge and sows distrust and profound misgivings. China will remain one of the Department's most persistent and complicated challenges. With the focus on so many crises overseas, it is easy to overlook the challenges on our own continent. We have a violent threat of transnational organized crime in our own hemisphere. When the United States faced a threat stemming from violence and the drug trade in Colombia in the 1990s, it dedicated significant resources and entered into a decade-long commitment to provide training and other enabling assistance.

Colombia is a success story, but the problem has simply moved, in many cases, to other nations in the region. General Kelly, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, leads the Department's efforts in the hemisphere, but he operates with scarce resources, a situation that may have serious consequences.

In addition to these traditional challenges that nation-states have faced for many, many years, the United States now faces new 21st century threats. For years we have devoted significant attention to the complex challenge of cyber warfare. The attack on the Sony Corporation was a watershed event in many respects, and it should and must stimulate fresh critical thinking. This attack demonstrated that a relatively small and weak rogue nation can reach across the oceans to cause extensive destruction to a U.S.-based economic target and very nearly succeed in suppressing freedom of expression through cyber space.

The real and manifest advantages of the offense over the defense in cyber warfare that enable militarily inferior nations to strike successfully against the homeland are a new and worrisome factor for our national security and that requires not only the attention of the Department of Defense but the attention of the Congress.

All of the issues I have talked about are external, but there are local issues that the Secretary of Defense has to deal with. Senator McCain pointed out probably the most significant one, and that is the budgetary and programmatic challenges that have been forced upon us by sequestration.

The most immediate threat facing the Defense Department is, indeed, sequestration because without resources, the programs, the policies, and the initiatives which must be undertaken to confront these national threats cannot be done.

General Mattis, former Commander of Central Command, recently testified before our committee. He said: ``No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today.''

Only one-third of Army brigades are ready to fight. Less than 50 percent of our combat squadrons are fully combat ready. Sequestration threatens not only our national security, but it risks damaging our public safety, our health, our transportation, our education, and our environment. In the world we face, there is not a neat distinction between what the Department of Defense does, what the Department of Homeland Security does, and what other civil agencies such as FEMA must do. It is something that we have to consider, not just in the context of the Department of Defense but in so many other agencies of the Federal Government--in fact, in every agency of the Federal Government.

When the Budget Control Act was passed, Dr. Carter organized the Strategic Choices and Management Review to find options for implementing the required defense cuts. The results of this review have helped the Defense Department navigate through difficult fiscal constraints, but Congress must find a balanced and bipartisan solution and a repeal of sequestration across the entire government.

Even without sequestration, the Defense Department has to tackle the rising personnel costs which could crowd out other items in the budget. Currently, military personnel benefits, including health care and retirement, consume approximately one-third of the Defense Department's budget.

If we are to adequately train and equip the force we have, to ensure they are capable of performing the arduous task we ask of them, and to modernize weapon systems, we must slow the growth of these costs within the Department in line with the slowdown of the overall top line. The congressionally mandated Military Compensation

and Retirement Modernization Commission recently released their recommendations. They are far-reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel benefits. They did so with the idea of improving the benefits available to many of our forces. They did it with the idea of insisting that our recruitment and retention efforts continue to be successful because we are a volunteer force. Their focus was really on the troops, but one of the effects of the recommendations was to make these costs sustainable over time.

As Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will have to work with Congress to carefully consider these recommendations to ensure that the Department has the resources to properly train and equip its fighting men and women.

The other major cost driver in the Defense Department is acquisition. To put it succinctly, defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much, but the Defense Department has undertaken significant reforms in recent years and many of these were personally led by Dr. Carter.

As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Dr. Carter oversaw implementation of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, and again, I must commend Senator McCain and Senator Levin for their leadership in this effort. The largest restructuring of DOD acquisition policies in more than two decades resulted from this initiative.

He also oversaw and contributed to improvements in a number of major acquisition programs, including the major restructuring on the Joint Strike Fighter program, the largest DOD acquisition program; efforts to reduce the cost of the Virginia-class submarine program and to improve contract performance, which has allowed the Navy to begin a two-per- year procurement program for these submarines, which are under budget and ahead of schedule--a remarkable achievement; improvements to the littoral combat ship program, which was experiencing major costs increases and delays, with Dr. Carter's participation DOD shifted to competitive fixed-price contracts in 2011; restructured procurement for the Air Force's KC-46A strategic tanker program, which led to a competitive procurement, incorporating a firm fixed-price development production contract for buying up to 120 tanker aircraft; and cancelling of the VH-71 program, an out-of-control program to replace the current Presidential helicopter fleet.

Clearly not all acquisition problems have been fixed and the Defense Department can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. I believe, from what I have just indicated, that Dr. Carter as Secretary of Defense will do just that. He has already demonstrated he can do it and he will do it.

Finally, and most importantly, as Senator McCain indicated, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will be leading 1.3 million Active-Duty military, 820,000 Reserve and Guard, and 773,000 civilians. They are under strain after over a decade of war and years of fiscal uncertainty. They are wrestling with many of the same issues as civilian society--issues such as sexual assault and suicide. Yet they are committed to protecting this Nation and remain the finest force in the world.

Every decision Dr. Carter makes, I know he will make it thinking ultimately about what is in the best interests of the men and women in uniform and the DOD civilian workforce who give so much to this country every day, and that, I think, is one of the factors that compels all of us to support this nomination.

Dr. Carter has proven time and time again his commitment to the men and women who serve this Nation. I believe he is the right leader at the right time for the Department of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

Mr. President, I would urge them also at this time to commend and thank Secretary Chuck Hagel for his service. It began decades ago as a young sergeant in Vietnam where he was wounded twice, where he fought in close combat against the enemies of the United States. He took this ethic from his own experience of understanding that ultimately the decisions made here in Washington are carried out by young men and women across this globe. In his tenure, he brought principled leadership, he brought a dedication to the men and women of the Armed Forces, and he also looked ahead in many different ways. One notable approach was his complete review of the nuclear establishment, the triad, not only in terms of its effectiveness but its security and its ability to respond to the threats not just of the Cold War but of the new world we face.

So for many reasons, he has done a remarkable job, and at this juncture, it is an opportunity to salute his efforts.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2015.

Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to spend more time outside.

For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are.

The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to States for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction.

The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental and educational groups.

In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation, 65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly includes environmental literacy.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Durbin, Whitehouse, Heinrich, and Bennet for joining as original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2015.

Given the major environmental challenges we face today, it is important to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. Preparing the next generation to be stewards of our natural environment not only equips them with important skills and knowledge but also, as studies have shown, enhances achievement levels in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement. Another key benefit is that it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to spend more time outside.

For more than 3 decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many states and schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Indeed, according to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 States and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are.

The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to States for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction.

The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental and educational groups.

In addition to the benefits that accrue to students, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical for long-term success. Indeed, according to a 2011 survey by the GreenBiz Group and the National Environmental Education Foundation, 65 percent of respondents valued environmental and sustainability knowledge as a factor in making hiring decisions, and 68 percent believed that the importance of this knowledge would continue to grow in the future. We must ensure that our students are prepared with the knowledge that employers are looking for, and that increasingly includes environmental literacy.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to work together to include its provisions into the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill aims to end the subsidization of illegal corporate behavior by taxpayers by closing a loophole that allows corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made to the government stemming from settling corporate misdeeds.

Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. Under Federal law, money paid to settle corporate civil or criminal penalties is not deductible. But under the tax code, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law. Corporations exploit this provision by later characterizing settlement penalties as restitution and a tax-deductible business expense.

I think most would agree that, for example, a corporation should not come to an agreement with the government to pay $500 million in criminal or civil fines and then when they file their taxes count those very fines as a business expense and take a tax windfall. Corporations that do this are effectively using taxpayer dollars to subsidize their illegal behavior. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that of the 34 companies and $1 billion in settlements they examined, 20 companies took a tax deduction for some or all of the money it paid to the government. Those settlements were silent on whether that $1 billion to the government counted as penalties or restitution. According to GAO, in two of those settlements, company representatives said they made a mistake in deducting civil penalty payments totaling $1.9 million and said they would amend their tax returns.

To address these practices, the Reed-Grassley bill would amend 162(f) of the tax code and require the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. Our bill also clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non-deductible. Furthermore, it increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts that will be paid by the offending party.

Last Congress it was estimated that over a ten-year budget window this legislation would raise $218 million in revenue.

With this legislation we can close this tax loophole that flies in the face of sensible and fair tax policy. The tax code should not be used to subsidize illegal activity by corporations. Indeed, when a fine is levied, that fine should not be construed as a legitimate business expense. Instead, it should be paid in full, with no tax deduction taken.

I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me again on this legislation. He has long championed closing this loophole. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill aims to end the subsidization of illegal corporate behavior by taxpayers by closing a loophole that allows corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made to the government stemming from settling corporate misdeeds.

Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. Under Federal law, money paid to settle corporate civil or criminal penalties is not deductible. But under the tax code, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law. Corporations exploit this provision by later characterizing settlement penalties as restitution and a tax-deductible business expense.

I think most would agree that, for example, a corporation should not come to an agreement with the government to pay $500 million in criminal or civil fines and then when they file their taxes count those very fines as a business expense and take a tax windfall. Corporations that do this are effectively using taxpayer dollars to subsidize their illegal behavior. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that of the 34 companies and $1 billion in settlements they examined, 20 companies took a tax deduction for some or all of the money it paid to the government. Those settlements were silent on whether that $1 billion to the government counted as penalties or restitution. According to GAO, in two of those settlements, company representatives said they made a mistake in deducting civil penalty payments totaling $1.9 million and said they would amend their tax returns.

To address these practices, the Reed-Grassley bill would amend 162(f) of the tax code and require the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. Our bill also clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non-deductible. Furthermore, it increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts that will be paid by the offending party.

Last Congress it was estimated that over a ten-year budget window this legislation would raise $218 million in revenue.

With this legislation we can close this tax loophole that flies in the face of sensible and fair tax policy. The tax code should not be used to subsidize illegal activity by corporations. Indeed, when a fine is levied, that fine should not be construed as a legitimate business expense. Instead, it should be paid in full, with no tax deduction taken.

I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me again on this legislation. He has long championed closing this loophole. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators Cochran and Whitehouse in introducing the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLS, Act.

Fifty years ago, when President Johnson urged Congress to enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he specifically called for an investment in school libraries, decrying that school libraries were ``limping along.'' Results from a recent National Center for Education Statistics survey show that there are still gaps in access to school libraries. Approximately 8,800 schools did not report having a library media center, and only about \2/3\ of the traditional public schools that did have libraries reported having a full-time, certified librarian. One in five traditional public schools reported having no paid, State certified library staff at all.

Effective school library programs are essential supports for educational success. Multiple education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills.

Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the only federal initiative explicitly dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners.

The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by requiring State and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the State, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians.

Absent a clear Federal investment, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology or cease to exist at all, and in turn, students will be cut off from a vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators Cochran and Whitehouse in introducing the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries, SKILLS, Act.

Fifty years ago, when President Johnson urged Congress to enact what would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he specifically called for an investment in school libraries, decrying that school libraries were ``limping along.'' Results from a recent National Center for Education Statistics survey show that there are still gaps in access to school libraries. Approximately 8,800 schools did not report having a library media center, and only about \2/3\ of the traditional public schools that did have libraries reported having a full-time, certified librarian. One in five traditional public schools reported having no paid, State certified library staff at all.

Effective school library programs are essential supports for educational success. Multiple education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills.

Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the only federal initiative explicitly dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners.

The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by requiring State and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the State, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians.

Absent a clear Federal investment, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology or cease to exist at all, and in turn, students will be cut off from a vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our Federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act I thank Senators Markey, Stabenow, and Warren for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers. Children who are read to frequently at home are more likely to become frequent readers themselves in later years. Indeed, according to Scholastic's Kids and Families Reading Report, among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 57 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. This highlights the important role that parents play in building their children's literacy skills.

To help support the parental role in literacy, the Prescribe a Book Act would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses to discuss with parents the importance of reading aloud to their children and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

I was pleased to see last year that the American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, recognized the important role that pediatric providers play in enhancing children's literacy skills In a policy statement, AAP recommended that pediatric providers promote early literacy development for children from birth to at least kindergarten entry, including by counseling parents on the importance of reading to their children and through providing age-appropriate books to high-risk, low-income young children.

Evidence shows that that the pediatric literacy model works. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the Reach out and Read program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. Building on existing efforts, which in the past have been supported by Federal funding included in the appropriations process and distributed by the Department of Education, and matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments, the Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization modeled on this type of successful public-private partnership. By so doing, it would leverage Federal dollars to expand pediatric literacy initiatives so that more young children reap the developmental benefits of having books at home and being read to by their parents.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Prescribe a Book Act, and to work to include its provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe a Book Act I thank Senators Markey, Stabenow, and Warren for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers. Children who are read to frequently at home are more likely to become frequent readers themselves in later years. Indeed, according to Scholastic's Kids and Families Reading Report, among children ages 6-11, 60 percent of frequent readers, those who read 57 days per week for fun, were read to aloud by a parent 5-7 times per week before they entered kindergarten. This highlights the important role that parents play in building their children's literacy skills.

To help support the parental role in literacy, the Prescribe a Book Act would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high-quality nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses to discuss with parents the importance of reading aloud to their children and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

I was pleased to see last year that the American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP, recognized the important role that pediatric providers play in enhancing children's literacy skills In a policy statement, AAP recommended that pediatric providers promote early literacy development for children from birth to at least kindergarten entry, including by counseling parents on the importance of reading to their children and through providing age-appropriate books to high-risk, low-income young children.

Evidence shows that that the pediatric literacy model works. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the Reach out and Read program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites. Building on existing efforts, which in the past have been supported by Federal funding included in the appropriations process and distributed by the Department of Education, and matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and State governments, the Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization modeled on this type of successful public-private partnership. By so doing, it would leverage Federal dollars to expand pediatric literacy initiatives so that more young children reap the developmental benefits of having books at home and being read to by their parents.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Prescribe a Book Act, and to work to include its provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Madam President, I would like to talk about an amendment I filed along with my colleague Susan Collins of Maine to support the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program.

As the Senate continues to debate whether to bypass a longstanding Presidential permitting process and essentially rubberstamp the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--which, to be clear, would likely benefit major oil companies and could have a harmful consequence on our environment--I wish to take the opportunity to highlight a Federal program that helps our country's most vulnerable citizens, including seniors, meet their home energy needs.

The bipartisan amendment led by Senator Collins and me, along with several of our colleagues, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--better known as LIHEAP-- should be funded at no less than $4.7 billion annually to ensure that more low-income households--those with children, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and veterans--are able to access this critical assistance.

I must commend Senator Collins. She and I have taken the lead on this effort over many sessions of Congress. Her efforts are extraordinarily critical for the continued support of this program, and it is no surprise that once again we are both together urging our colleagues to support this program.

LIHEAP is the main Federal program that helps low-income families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and a growing number of veterans across the country pay their energy bills. It provides vital assistance during the cold winter months often seen in the Northeast, the Northern Plains, and across the northern part of the country, and also during the summer months in areas of the Southeast and Southwest where air-conditioning is absolutely critical to the health and welfare of seniors. Unfortunately, we often read very disturbing reports of individuals, particularly seniors, with serious medical conditions that can become fatal because they simply can't afford the cost of air- conditioning or home heating.

This is not a program that is regionally specific; this is a program that has a national impact and, as such, has to be supported. It is an indispensable lifeline that ensures recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities such as food and medicine.

The funding also supports many small businesses, such as oil heating companies. They see the benefits of LIHEAP as well. It goes to pay utility bills, which indirectly affects small businesses and individual ratepayers across a broad spectrum. So the benefits of this legislation are not just for the specific recipients but also for the overall economy of our States and for small businesses, and that has to be noted.

We also recognize that there are many more households eligible than receive the benefits simply because the funding levels are insufficient.

Despite bipartisan efforts over many years--again, with Senator Collins being right there--funding reductions in 2011 and 2012, along with sequester cuts, mean LIHEAP funding has declined more than 30 percent since fiscal year 2010, from $5.1 billion down to about $3.4 billion. This raises another bigger issue.

We have seen our deficit decline significantly, from 9.8 percent of gross domestic product now to about 2.8 percent. In fact, that is a little bit below the 40-year average of deficits in the United States. This hasn't been just because of magic; it is because we have been cutting programs. This is an example of one of the programs we have cut very significantly, and it is a program that aids so many people in our communities--particularly seniors and people with disabilities. This deficit reduction has been hard won, and one of the costs has been supporting these people. The money has shrunk, so obviously the number of people serviced has shrunk. The number of households LIHEAP funds has declined by 17 percent, from about 8.1 million households to 6.7 million households, and they have seen this impact directly. Those receiving assistance have also seen their average LIHEAP grant reduced by about $100, down to about $400. This is estimated to cover less than half of the average home heating costs for a household this winter, meaning that many low-income families and seniors will have fewer resources available to meet other basic needs.

I must point out that we are seeing a temporary reprieve from very high energy prices--particularly oil prices in the Northeast--because of geopolitical developments that have impacted the price of oil. But that is not the solution. The bills these people face, even in this economic climate as well as meteorological climate, are still significant and challenging to people of very limited means. For many people, this is an issue of safety, it is an issue of their health, and it is an issue of just being able to get by and make ends meet.

So the need is clear, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of LIHEAP and in support of this amendment.

In this context, we need to be proactive in terms of recognizing something we can do on a bipartisan basis that works.

I do believe I should also comment at this moment on the underlying proposal, the Keystone XL Pipeline.

We understand this TransCanada pipeline would move crude oil from the Canadian tar sands--one of the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet-- to refineries on our gulf coast. There are many ways to extract hydrocarbons, and this is one of the most environmentally challenging ways. Constructing this pipeline runs counter to what we should be doing on a much broader basis, which is addressing climate change and protecting the environment.

I was struck yesterday at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and the Presiding Officer is a distinguished and very valuable member of that committee--where we listened to Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft and

Zbigniew Brzezinski, two of the foremost experts on national security policy. General Scowcroft was National Security Adviser for President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Dr. Brzezinski was National Security Adviser for President Carter and was integral in negotiating the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. I was struck, when asked about the big issues we face, that General Scowcroft said: Well, there are two big issues--cyber security and climate change. When you have these very authoritative individuals--again on a bipartisan basis-- essentially saying climate change is a big national security issue, that is the context in which we have to view so many things, in particular this issue of the Keystone Pipeline.

The second issue is the obvious need in this country to create jobs. In fact--no pun intended--that is job number 1 for us. Now, there are jobs associated with the pipeline. Even if they are of short duration, they are still pretty good jobs. But the point has to be made that we have to do much more--particularly for our construction workers--than one single pipeline. I have been told that long-term employment of the pipeline, once it is built--will be very small.

We have to do much more. That is why I think we have to be very serious about an infrastructure program that goes way beyond Keystone and includes roads, bridges, sewers--all these things we have let decline. If we look at the spending levels--once again, a victim of our deficit reduction, a victim of the cuts we have made--we are at a level now where we are not doing what our fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, and mothers did, which is invest a lot of money in building infrastructure for a productive America. We have been missing in action for the last several years as far as doing those things we used to do routinely--building new highways, building new sewer systems, improving our pollution control systems, all of those things. We have to do that.

We also have to do those things in the context of climate change--in other words, look at alternative energy and not just replicate what we did 20 or 30 years ago because this is a different planet.

According to the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental groups, repairing America's crumbling infrastructure could create 2.7 million jobs across the economy, increase GDP by $377 billion, while reducing carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions. So it is not thousands of jobs; it is millions of jobs. It is not one project; it is a commitment to improving, advancing, and rehabilitating our infrastructure in every part of the country, while at the same time dealing with climate change, which is so central.

So, I would like to see us, as we move past this debate, move vigorously into a debate about infrastructure.

There is another issue too, and that is this debate about where the oil is going. Well, given the global market for petroleum products, it could go to parts of the United States, but it could easily go overseas. A lot of that is a factor of the price and the demand. We have seen a lot of oil going into Asia in particular. I think that trend will continue for several reasons. One reason is that they have done less, relatively speaking, than many other parts of the world in terms of lowering their dependence on oil and moving to alternative fuels. So the potential is that a significant amount, if not all, of this product--even though it reaches the gulf coast--will not be used in the United States. That is another factor we have to consider.

Bypassing the administration's traditional legislative review process with respect to Keystone is not the way to proceed. We have to get our energy policies right. I think we have to recognize climate change. We have to be sensitive to a whole host of issues. We also have to recognize that an energy policy is not just producing and getting these products into the marketplace, it is also making sure that very vulnerable Americans can afford these products, whatever their prices may be. That is where LIHEAP comes in.

I am very pleased, once again, that this is a continuation of a bipartisan effort Senator Collins and many others have pursued for the benefit of families all across this country. When we are doing that, I think we are doing the best possible work we can for our constituents and our Nation.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 74.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment, which I am proud to sponsor with Senator Collins of Maine. It would express the sense of the Senate that we should fund LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, at $4.7 billion. We have seen a significant diminution of the LIHEAP funding over the years.

This amendment helps every aspect of the country. It helps low-income households, particularly seniors. It would help immensely families throughout this country. In the winter it is about heating oil in New England and Alaska and all through the north and central plains. In the summer it is about cooling in the southwest and the southeast. If families and households can't get access to these resources, they have to make a hard choice between literally paying for their energy or sometimes their rent or sometimes their food. This program has been long supported on a bipartisan basis. We should aim for this figure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute on the Reed-Collins amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paulina Rippere, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of the 114th Congress.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which I strongly support. As I have emphasized in the past, reauthorizing TRIA is vital. In addition to serving on the Banking Committee, I also now serve as the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Committee, and it is through this dual perspective, and from what we know of the significant terrorist threats our Nation still faces, that I am convinced that there is value in reauthorizing TRIA.

We must keep markets effectively operating in light of these threats. We must continue to have policies in place to make sure our economy stays on track in the event of another attack on our nation. In short, reauthorizing TRIA is not only a matter of economic security, it is also a matter of national security.

I believe most of my colleagues share this view, and it is one of the many reasons why the Senate in the last Congress was able to pass a TRIA reauthorization bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis by a vote of 93 to 4 in July of last year. This did not happen by accident but through a concerted bipartisan effort in the Senate to steer clear of controversial and ideological demands on both sides of the aisle in an earnest attempt to work together in defense of our country and our economy.

We are here today because the House of Representatives did not abide by these same principles and insisted on including in the reauthorization bill an unrelated provision that would weaken the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform Act. This provision effectively prevents the banking regulators, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, from calling for margin or collateral protections if they happen to notice excessive risk in derivatives transactions with commercial end users. In short, this bill would prevent our financial regulators from utilizing this tool to protect our markets.

Especially in the wake of the financial crisis, it would seem that we should be providing our regulators with all the necessary tools to limit excessive risk instead of limiting their ability to protect our markets. Indeed, the financial regulators have already been exercising the discretion we gave them in Dodd-Frank to exempt commercial end users from having to post margin through a proposed rule. But by passing this provision today, we eliminate this discretion to protect our markets through this particular tool even when the facts on the ground may call for its use in the name of market integrity.

For example, in December of last year, Reuters published an article that explained the unexpected risks that certain commercial end users are facing in light of falling oil prices. The article noted, ``with oil prices tumbling faster and further than anyone had anticipated, the collar hedges left the airlines with insurance against high costs they no longer need and on the hook for protection they sold against a further slide, with potential liabilities on the rise.'' In short, even commercial end users face risks, both expected and unexpected, in their derivatives transactions, and if the circumstances call for it, we should be giving our regulators the necessary tools to police and protect our markets; not further restricting them.

All of this goes back to the need for considering these very complicated and consequential bills that impact our financial markets in a deliberative manner, not through attaching them at the last minute to unrelated and must pass bills. I voted against the Omnibus Appropriations bill in the last Congress, in part, because it repealed section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which sought to prevent bank subsidiaries that are covered by federal deposit insurance or that take advantage of Federal Reserve lending programs from engaging in the riskiest derivatives trades. In essence, the riskiest derivatives trades would have been pushed out from these subsidiaries in an effort to reduce systemic risk and provide greater assurances that Wall Street gambles would not be subsidized by taxpayers. Unfortunately, this provision was repealed before it even had the chance to be fully implemented by the regulators.

During my tenure as the then-chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, I spent many hours working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to thoughtfully and carefully develop a derivatives compromise. While our effort was transformed during the conference on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, I am keenly aware of just how complicated derivatives can be, and I have come to see that even the most seemingly innocuous provisions can have devastating and unintended consequences.

Everyone should understand by now that the last thing Congress should be doing is passing derivatives legislation with little deliberation as part of any must pass legislation. This assault, bit by bit, on the Dodd-Frank Act must

stop. It is a disservice to the seriousness of this issue, to our constituents, and to our economy. Lately, my Republican colleagues have called for working cooperatively through the committee process, and I welcome this opportunity. While this did not happen with this particular derivatives provision, I hope my Republican colleagues will do so in the future.

For these reasons, I support the Warren amendment.