Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which I strongly support. The minimum wage, first instituted in 1938, has served as a key way to protect workers in our economy, ensuring they are able to earn enough money to provide basic living necessities. However, the current minimum wage set at $7.25 fails to do that.

The Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Today an individual who works 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year at the Federal minimum wage earns $15,080 per year. This is nearly $5,000 below the Federal poverty level for a family of three and almost $9,000 below the poverty level for a family of four. This means we have hard-working Americans who put in full-time work every week for the entire year yet still live in poverty. This is unacceptable.

If we fail to act, the Federal poverty level will rise with inflation while the minimum wage will not. As a result, families earning $7.25 per hour will continue to fall further and further below the poverty line.

The value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and it is now much lower due to inflation. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would currently pay $10.74 per hour. While the value of the minimum wage has been on the decline, worker productivity has been on the rise, and that is a disconnect. Increased productivity usually means there are increased wages that reflect that productivity, but that is not the case with the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had increased with rising productivity, it would be worth over $21 per hour today. Yet the minimum wage still stays stuck at $7.25.

If we were paying workers based on the 1968 level, it would be much higher. If we were paying workers based on their productivity and their ability to do the job, it would be exceptionally high.

The bill that will come before us shortly will increase the minimum wage in three installments until it reaches $10.10 per hour and then tie the Federal minimum wage to inflation. This would ensure that the value of the minimum wage will not be eroded over time as it has been. The bill will also increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, whose minimum wage has been fixed at $2.13 for over two decades. I must salute the Presiding Officer for his insistence that this provision be included in the minimum wage bill.

Over 3.5 million Americans currently work at or below the current minimum wage, and there are millions more who work just above it. Raising the minimum wage would therefore increase the wages of everyone making between the current minimum wage and the $10.10 mark.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 16.5 million Americans would see their wages increased by this legislation. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that 28 million people would benefit from the wage increase.

According to researchers at MIT, a Rhode Island worker supporting a family of four would need to earn $19.17 per hour to have a living wage, a wage in which he or she could adequately support their family. Yet the current minimum wage lags woefully behind, thereby putting many working families in dire financial situations.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour--I would point out that our minimum wage in Rhode Island is $8 and that is higher than the Federal minimum wage--would give over 90,000 Rhode Islanders a raise. That would immediately translate to economic activity in Rhode Island, and it would immediately translate into growth in Rhode Island. That raise would affect almost 20 percent of our workforce. This is a critical way--in order to give families the ability to support themselves--to increase economic growth and also significantly begin to bring together workers at every level. We have seen extraordinary gains at the top level. We have extraordinary stagnation at the mid-level and the low level. We have to start bringing ourselves together rather than pulling ourselves apart.

Providing a raise to these Rhode Island workers would also impact an estimated 40,000 children in those families. Over 3 years, the Economic Policy Institute estimates this will cause the Rhode Island economy to grow by $77 million and support 300 additional jobs. We are talking about economic growth as well as fairness to working Americans.

The benefits of raising the minimum wage are vast both in my State and across this country. According to the CBO, this legislation would lift an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. It would also help low and middle-income families who have been struggling in this economy. This would have a huge impact--and a positive impact--across the country.

Increasing the minimum wage is especially important to women who disproportionately work minimum wage jobs. Fifty-five percent of all minimum wage workers are women, including over 70 percent of the tipped workers.

Again, thanks to the efforts of the Presiding Officer, we are focusing on this issue of the tipped worker and their minimum wage.

While some have suggested otherwise, this legislation is also good for business. Studies show that higher wages allow businesses to save money because they have less turnover and lower training costs, which leads to increases in worker productivity that helps businesses succeed. An increased minimum wage can also help our Nation's small businesses to compete. It forces the big-box stores to pay wages that are comparable to those that are paid by many small businesses, which levels the playing field in the marketplace.

Finally, this bill will save billions of dollars on the Federal budget. By raising the minimum wage to $10.10, Federal need-based programs would have fewer enrollees and the costs of these programs would drop significantly. Researchers at the Brookings Institution estimate that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 will save at least $11 billion annually in the Federal budget,

and these savings come both from the lower costs of Federal programs and increased revenues from taxing a higher base salary.

Some critics have suggested that increasing the minimum wage only helps teenagers, but in fact the average age of individuals who will benefit from this legislation is 35 years old. Nationally, over 84 percent of those directly affected by this legislation are at least 20 years old and nearly half are at least 30.

In my State, according to the estimates by the Economic Policy Institute, 77 percent of workers who would see a raise under this bill are at least 20 years old. This is not just the part-time high school student who works a few hours a week making the minimum wage; these are people who are, on average, 30 years or older who are working and struggling not only for themselves but, in many cases, for their families. This bill is something that is beneficial to workers throughout this country.

Opponents of the minimum wage have also argued that increasing the minimum wage will decrease jobs, citing a recent CBO report. However, the CBO report was generated without any new analyses on the part of the CBO, and their estimates are stated with a great deal of uncertainty.

In fact, the CBO's own numbers suggest there is a 16-percent chance that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would actually increase employment. Economists at Goldman Sachs and at the Brookings Institution say that the CBO report overstates the likely negative impact on jobs.

Further, over 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners, sent a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to support this bill, saying that ``the weight of evidence now [shows] that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.'' They go on to add that it could help stimulate the economy as higher wages will lead to increased consumer demand and spending.

The most recent research suggests that rather than having job losses, this will contribute to a growing economy. The benefits of raising the minimum wage are immense for families, workers, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help restore the minimum wage as a safeguard for workers and their families in this country.

Recognizing 99th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide

Mr. President, this month we solemnly recognize the 99th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Ninety-nine years ago the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire summoned and executed over 200 Armenian leaders and intellectuals, beginning an 8-year campaign of oppression and massacre. By 1923, nearly 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over a half a million survivors were exiled. These atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor and, indeed, throughout the world.

Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during President Wilson's administration and who had urged intervention, later remembered the events of the genocide, saying:

I am confident that the whole history of the human race

contains no such horrible episode as this. The great

massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost

insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian

race in 1915.

The survivors of the Armenian genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit and steadfast resolve. They went on to enrich their countries of emigration, including the United States, with their centuries-old customs and culture. That is why today we not only commemorate this grave tragedy, but we celebrate the traditions, the contributions, and the bright future of Armenia.

In particular, I wish to note the incredibly strong Armenian-American community in my home State of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Armenian- American community, as it does each year, holds events in commemoration of this grave tragedy. One will take place this year at the Martyrs' Monument at the North Burial Ground in Providence. This monument was built 38 years ago in memory of those who were lost in the genocide.

This year I once again join with my Senate colleagues on a resolution that encourages the United States to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Denial of this history is not consistent with our country's sensitivity to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We must continue to educate our young people against this type of hatred and oppression so that we can seek to prevent such crimes against humanity in the future.

I also remain committed to supporting efforts as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide foreign assistance to Armenia to promote economic growth and business competitiveness, strengthen military and security assistance, and support democratic reforms and sustainable development.

I also wish to express my concern regarding the recent fighting and violence that is endangering the Armenian community in Kessab, Syria, and has forced many to flee. This community and so many others continue to struggle in the midst of this conflict.

We must find a way to recognize what happened 99 years ago and show our steadfast support to those who are currently being impacted by persecution. I hope we can come together and do that.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. I would like to first commend the senior Senator from Maryland for her fearless and tireless leadership on this issue. She has been a protean force when it comes to this issue and many others. I deeply admire and respect her.

This week I held my annual roundtable with the Women's Fund in Providence. We talked about equal rights, equal pay, and economic opportunity and justice with women who are creating jobs and fighting inequality everyday.

Today, as my colleagues have pointed out, we mark Equal Pay Day. Women would have to work until April 8 of this year just to earn what men did as of December 31 of last year. Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act will move us one step closer to being able to commemorate Equal Pay Day on December 31 each year for both men and women, and that is what we should be striving for.

This year we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and the war on poverty. We have come a long way, but our efforts to form a more perfect, more equal union must continue forward. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, women were earning an average of 59 cents on the dollar compared to men.

No matter how you slice it, median annual earnings, weekly earnings, by level of education or occupation, there is still a gender gap in pay today.

The Women's Fund of Rhode Island issued a report showing that gender discrimination in pay is even more striking for minority women. In Rhode Island African-American women make 61 cents for every dollar that a white male makes. For Latinas the figure is 51 cents. This gender discrimination pay gap affects women at all educational levels.

According to the Council of Economic Advisers, women are more likely to complete college--that is right. Today women are completing college more than men. In 2012, 25- to 34-year-old women were 21 percent more likely than men to be college graduates, but this is not closing the earnings gap. To all those who say it is all about education, and these people have more education, that is wrong. It is not.

Women who earn advanced degrees start off on a relatively even footing--people with a Master's or a Ph.D. But again, over the course of their careers the wage gap widens in favor of men. The National Partnership for Women and Families reports that women with Master's degrees are paid 70 cents for every dollar paid to men with Master's degrees, and women with Master's degrees earn less than men with Bachelor's degrees.

Equal pay for equal work is not only an issue of equity. It has real economic consequences. Families rely on women's income. Data analyzed by the National Partnership for Women and Families show that women are the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of families. If we eliminate gender discrimination in pay in Rhode Island, a working woman would have enough extra money to buy 74 more weeks of food for her family, to make 6 more months of mortgage and utilities payments, or to pay 11 more months of rent. That just doesn't help the woman; it helps the family.

One of the best tools in fighting poverty is to close the pay gap. The Paycheck Fairness Act will help fulfill the promise of the Equal Pay Act by improving the remedies available to women facing gender discrimination. These are commonsense and fair improvements for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our fathers, our sons, and our brothers.

We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. We believe everyone deserves a fair shot, and that includes equal pay for equal work. I urge my colleagues to come together to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, and with that I will yield the floor.

Madam President, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation designed to provide very limited assistance to millions of Americans who have lost their unemployment compensation benefits. On December 28, the long-term unemployment insurance benefits terminated. At that point it was 1.3 million Americans; today it is 2.3 million Americans, and it is growing.

Since December 28, we have, on a bipartisan basis, been endeavoring to bring to this floor for a final vote a 5-month extension, some of which--in fact, with each passing day more of which--is retroactive rather than prospective. This bill is designed to help people.

In fact, this bill will provide them the benefits they were receiving based upon their work record because the only way you can receive unemployment insurance benefits is to lose a job through no fault of your own and continue to search for a job.

These are working Americans. The benefits we are talking about are roughly $300 a week. What does that do? For some people it helps them keep their home. It pays the rent. For some others it provides food for their families. For others it provides them the ability to have a cell phone that is plugged in, literally, because they need one when they get, they hope, the offer for a job interview or for a job. So contrary to doing nothing to help Americans, this does a great deal for people who have earned these benefits through their toil and effort and their continued efforts to look for jobs.

We have an obligation, a great obligation to increase the growth in this country, and to do it in a way that will allow people to find jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are at least two applicants for every job--in many cases, three applicants. There is a disconnect in many cases between the skills they have had over decades of work and the skills that employers are looking for today. And we have to address that.

But, to prevent this legislation from going through is to deny millions of working Americans the support they need to get through a very difficult period. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we have come together. We have 5 months fully paid for. This is a fiscally sound piece of legislation which benefits men and women across this country based upon their work record. I don't think there is a more important thing we can do at this moment, and to delay it would be a disservice to the people.

I think something else is important too. When we talk about economic growth, let us recognize this legislation will help growth in the United States. There have been estimates if we had a full-year extension of the unemployment insurance program it would generate 200,000 jobs. Those are significant numbers. That is roughly about 1 month's job growth over the last several years. If we don't do this, then we won't get that growth.

So not only is this a fundamentally sound, fair, and thoughtful thing to do for millions of American families, it is also good for our economy. It does provide the growth my colleagues are talking about when they say we have to grow this economy.

There is much more that we could do. Many of my Republican colleagues, who have come to provide their insights and support, have suggested longer term ways in which we could deal with the unemployment crisis--better training programs, et cetera. Indeed, we have a bipartisan Workforce Investment Act reauthorization that is in the HELP Committee that I hope we can get to the floor quickly because we have to reform our overall job training program in this country. As I go out and talk to businessmen and women in Rhode Island, they say there is a disconnect between the skill set many people have and the skills they need for their workplace.

There is another aspect of this situation. The long-term unemployed numbers in this country today are twice as high as they are typically when we have ended unemployment benefits previously. We have a significant problem and a growing problem of the long-term unemployed.

Again, we will wait for the data to be conclusive and decisive, but my sense is, going back to Rhode Island, many of these individuals are in their middle ages--they are 40 and 50 years old. They have worked for 20 years. They have good work records, but the skills that employers are looking for right now are not immediately those skills that they have. Of course, there are job training options available, but all of these things require support. Again, if you are juggling family responsibilities and trying to get job training, that $300 a week benefit check you have earned through your previous work is very helpful as you prepare yourself for a new job.

This legislation can't be delayed any longer. This is not about some political demonstration or some political messaging point; this is about getting aid and assistance to 2.3 million Americans today. And that number will grow with each passing day. It is about helping people who earned this benefit through their work.

I can't think of anything more important that we can do--and do it in a timely and prompt manner. That is why I hope we can move forward as quickly as possible on a bipartisan basis with fully paid for legislation which is fiscally responsible, which will provide assistance for millions of deserving Americans and in addition provide further stimulus to our economy.

A final point. Why does this provide a stimulus to the economy? Because these types of benefits go to a former worker, someone looking for work, and they go right back in the economy. This is not a sophisticated tax break that will allow someone to put some money aside for a rainy day. This goes right to the families, right to the economy--to the local grocery store, to the local gas station for the repairs of a car, to pay for daycare that is necessary for children--to do those things that will go right back and stimulate further growth in our economy.

For reasons both of fundamental fairness and individual recognition that these people deserve a break in a tough economy and the very real fact that this dramatically benefits our overall economy, I think we have to move.

I am pleased and proud that we have had the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move forward procedurally. I hope we can finish this debate promptly, move this over to the House, and then begin to work with the House so they recognize the same reality that on a bipartisan basis we have recognized here.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving my right to object, the underlying emergency bipartisan legislation is critical to helping 2.7 million Americans, and I would hope we could expeditiously move to that legislation. Therefore, I would object to the unanimous consent request by the distinguished Senator from Utah with respect to his amendment No. 2905.

Madam President, the same logic--given the emergency nature of the legislation before us, I would urge immediate action. Therefore, I would object to the senior Senator's unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I see Senator Blunt. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Blunt's remarks, I be recognized.

Madam President, because of the emergency nature of the underlying bipartisan bill to aid about 2.7 million Americans, I would object.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the underlying legislation, which is so critical. It is an emergency. On December 28, we stopped extending unemployment benefits for at that point 1.3 million Americans. These are individuals who were working and who are looking for work, since that is the only way you can collect these benefits.

Since that time, they have been without the very modest support that emergency unemployment insurance provides. It provides about $300 a week. We are trying, on a bipartisan basis, to

move this legislation through this body and get it to the House so these people can get some help and support as they continue to look for work.

This legislation will support a program that is vital to 2.7 million Americans, and it is a bipartisan compromise. This is not something that is being jammed through exclusively at the will of the majority. This has been an effort that began months ago. First we worked with Senator Heller and then other colleagues--Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Portman, and Senator Kirk.

We listened to their suggestions and incorporated them so we could move forward on a bipartisan basis as we have done on so many different topics. We would like to have a vote, move it to the House, and have it signed by the President so we can get the relief, support, and assistance to these Americans. Again, I have to emphasize that they are only qualified for this program because they lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are continuing to look for work in a very difficult economy.

The one other thing I wanted to mention, which is very important, is we are building on significant changes to the unemployment compensation laws that were passed in 2012. At that time the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, described these as historic reforms. Our goal, as I said many times during the past few weeks and months, and prior to and since the ending of these benefits on December 28, is to find a path forward to a rather straightforward extension of the benefits. Again, this is a temporary extension. It is a 5-month total window, but with each day more of it is retroactive. The reason we wanted to look for a very straightforward proposal is that, first, it would recognize the important changes and reforms that were made in 2012. Many of the ideas I have seen and heard discussed around here actually were considered thoughtfully in 2012 and incorporated in many cases--not all cases-- into the legislation.

The other thing we want to do is make this as administratively feasible as possible to implement by the State agencies. Adding significant changes, such as adding a training component that didn't exist before, not only complicated the implementation, but when you stop and step back, it usually costs money.

One of the underlying premises, particularly from my colleagues who worked with us from the Republican side, is that this whole effort has to be fully funded. This bill is fully offset during this ten year budgetary window. This is paid for, it incorporates the ideas and suggestions from my colleagues on the other side, and it is now time to move for passage.

I recognize there are many issues we could deal with in the Senate. Many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come to us with their issues. But to do that would undercut the ability to, in timely manner,--today or I hope tomorrow, but certainly this week--pass this legislation and move forward.

Millions of Americans are facing a crisis. They are out of work and looking for a job. In my State there are probably two applicants for every job, and in many cases there are probably three or four applicants for every job. We also recognize this is a long-term unemployed population that is different in some respects than previous episodes of unemployment. There are indications and suggestions that they are older on average. They are also facing a situation where the economy has been very difficult for many years.

Many of them are homeowners who can't sell their house because of the market so they can't move to an area where there is work. Many of them, particularly if they are middle-aged, have responsibilities to mothers and fathers who may have health issues, and children they have to support. The overall situation is that these individuals are facing a very difficult challenge.

There is a very thoughtful paper by the former chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, and his colleagues. They described the difficulty of these unemployed Americans in this economy, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

We have seen periods of significant unemployment. I can recall the 1980s, when unemployment hit 10 percent, but normally there is a relatively fast response once the right fiscal and monetary policies are put in place. Some of that was because of the mobility of the American people back then, contrasted to people who are now tied to their home because they can't sell it, and some of it is due to the relative age of the unemployed back then where the mobility was not as much of a factor as it is today.

We are trying to help these people who have, in many cases, worked for decades and now for the first time find themselves in a very difficult situation.

If you look overall, there are 10.4 million Americans who are out of work but are looking for that job--for that fair shot--so they have a chance to move on and be a part of the American economy. Extending emergency unemployment benefits to these 2.7 million people is just one part of the efforts we have to undertake. No one should be under the impression that this is a solution. No. This is just a response to the incredible need of these very worthwhile Americans who are looking for work.

I do note that this aid is very targeted. I cannot repeat it enough. There is this sort of notion out there that this is sort of a giveaway to people who are undeserving. Well, the benefits are targeted to people who meet very specific criteria and, most importantly, they have to have an adequate work history to be eligible for unemployment insurance in the first place. They have to be workers. We are trying to help workers. They have to have lost their job through no fault of their own--they were laid off. It is not as though they didn't like their job and left, or had problems in the workplace and were not fitting in. These are people who want to work, and they were told they cannot work any longer. They were downsized, they were outsourced--all the 10K euphemisms for saying, ``We don't need you anymore.'' Well, they are important people who want to work, and they have to actively look for work in order to qualify for benefits. This is not an open- ended benefit to individuals who have no end in sight. They are either going to find a job or exhaust these benefits.

One of the reforms we did in 2012, frankly, was to shrink the period of time. Previous to 2012, there were 73 weeks of emergency extended benefits. We shrunk that down to 47 weeks. So this notion that this is an unending, indefinite, long-term benefit to people who don't earn it is completely incorrect.

This program has been in effect for a very long time. Indeed, some form of it has been put in place since 2008 when George W. Bush was the President, when we first started seeing the signs of increasing unemployment. This was in conjunction with the near collapse of many financial institutions, in 2007 and 2008. The housing market was literally coming off the tracks. The consequences for the American economy at that time were probably the most severe since the Great Depression. One of the ways we have been dealing with these issues began with President Bush, and continuing now with President Obama, is emergency unemployment compensation benefits for Americans.

I think we have to look at and be conscious of all of the facts and data. We are also at a point where we have to recognize there are two programs. There is a State program, which covers the first 26 weeks, and then there is the emergency Federal unemployment benefits program.

This emergency program, in some respects, is becoming much more critical, because what we find now is that the long-term unemployed are probably twice the number you would typically associate with an economy such as ours at the present moment. We have unemployment rates that range from the high--unfortunately Rhode Island is at 9 percent--to the very low. There are some States because of the commodities-- particularly energy commodities--that virtually have no unemployment.

At this point we should not see the kind of long-term unemployed we are seeing. The Federal program--not the State program, which is the first 26 weeks--is going to help these people

who are particularly struggling. It is a targeted program--very much targeted--but it has an outsized impact. Not only are the workers who are receiving this very modest weekly stipend of roughly $300 a week able to pay for essentials, but it has a very positive effect on our overall economy.

All of my colleagues are here today saying, listen, not only do we have to help these people, but more importantly, we have to grow this economy. Well, by the way, the legislation we are proposing does both. These emergency benefits have been repeatedly analyzed by economists, and they have been determined to provide a significantly greater bang for the buck than many other programs being talked about today on the floor that are being suggested as alternatives or complements to what we are talking about. That is why the Congressional Budget Office, in a very modest and conservative analysis, projected that if we fail to extend these emergency benefits through 2014-- through the whole year--it would cost our economy 200,000 jobs. So those people who are opposing these benefits are basically saying we are not interested in at least part of these 200,000 jobs.

It is not, as they often say, rocket science. What happens to this money is it goes to a family who desperately needs it immediately to repair the car, to buy groceries, to take care of the necessities of life. So this money is not going to be put aside for a rainy day. It is not going to be exported overseas for a venture some place. It is going to be used locally in the economy--at the grocery store, at the service station, at the dry cleaners, and to pay for the cell phone so a person can stay in touch to see if they get that job and if they are offered a job. That effect of immediately putting money in the economy immediately generates more economic activity. It is the fact that at the local coffee shop a person will come in and get a cup of coffee and maybe be able to afford something else too. That goes to the ability of that local coffee shop to keep some more people on to work the counters. It has a cumulative effect.

The economists have measured it, and it is much more than the dollars we are putting into it. It has a multiplier effect. So what we are doing is not only providing the necessary support for these deserving families; we are providing an injection of economic activity into our economy--precisely what all of my colleagues are saying we have to do. Let's do it. We can do it. We are very close. On a bipartisan basis, we are hopefully hours away, I hope, from getting this done, and then sending it over to the House.

Then, we need to ask our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to consider not only the bipartisan nature of this bill but also the fact that it not only provides economic stimulus, but it also is fiscally responsible. We have paid for these efforts. That was insisted upon, and we have certainly acceded to that request by so many of our colleagues.

Now, with respect to reforms of the temporary program, and even the permanent State program, as I said before, we made significant reforms in 2012. I was a member of the conference committee, at the request of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to participate, particularly in the deliberations about the unemployment insurance compensation program. These 2012 reforms go a long way to make the system better. Can we make more improvements? Of course. Can we shift to a related but an important topic, which is job training, through the Workforce Investment Act? Yes, we can, and we should. But we shouldn't hold this legislation hostage to training improvements and to additional reform.

One of the reforms which we worked to enhance in the bill before us today, which was implemented in 2012, is the Reemployment Service and Reemployment Eligibility Assessment, or the RES and REA. I have to thank Senator Collins, particularly. She was insistent that we provide a way to better link up individuals looking for work and the jobs that are available. This is a mechanism that does this. This is an evidence- based reform that has been successful in getting individuals back to work sooner. It also helps to ensure individuals are receiving the proper benefit. It addresses one of the major concerns we received from the House Ways and Means Committee Republicans with respect to overpayments. Essentially, what it does is it requires--there is one assessment in the program right now--a second assessment at a certain period during the extended benefits. So an individual would have to come in and essentially be counseled. They would also verify the person is searching for work, that the benefits are appropriate, and also give the kind of counseling and assistance and help that is shown by evidence to be effective in linking job seekers to jobs. We are very committed to this improvement. This is one of the improvements we put into the legislation. We have provided the funding for State agencies to take care of it.

So this is something we think is going to be a direct beneficial solution to a legitimate issue raised by so many. How do we connect those who are unemployed today with the jobs that are out there?

I will say something else, too, about this. There has been some suggestion that there are a lot of overpayments in the system and that people are really getting more than they should. Well RESs and REAs play an important program integrity role, not just providing counsel to the individual. They also have to ensure that the people are, in fact, actively seeking work. This legislation is saying these individuals have to physically come to the State agency, not just at the first tier, when they start it, but at the third tier--that is the way we break it up--several weeks into the process of emergency unemployment benefits. Doing that--their physical presence in the office, talking to a counselor--helps the system be more legitimate, and it helps the accountability because the individual State counselor will be able to check on how faithful they are to the program and how consistent their benefits are. That double check is part of the legislation which I think will be effective and efficient. We want both effectiveness and efficiency. As I indicated before, it is fully paid for, so it is not an additional burden to States.

In the 2012 reforms, we also included my work-sharing initiative. This is critical. I have heard from so many companies in Rhode Island that before the 2012 legislation, there were a few States--Rhode Island was one--that were actually doing something very creative. They said that instead of laying a person off totally, if you keep the person employed for a certain number of days and provide their benefits, we will pay for the one or two days they don't work. It is a partial payment. That has been able to allow companies to really keep their core group of workers together. Instead of throwing someone out and saying they are sorry, as well as losing their expertise and losing their skills, they have been able to keep their operation moving. It is a smart way of doing it. It has been very successful in Rhode Island, and it is now a national option. That is because of an initiative from 2012 that was a good reform and a smart, efficient way to use the taxpayers' dollars.

With respect to work search generally, the 2012 reforms for the first time created a uniform standard for both the State-based program and the temporary emergency program to ensure that States require that in order to be eligible, individuals need to be ``able, available, and actively seek[ing] work.'' We also passed a reform to better recover improper payments by requiring States to offset their current State benefits in order to recover overpayments owed to other States and the Federal Government. So program integrity, program efficiency, and program effectiveness were significantly embodied in the 2012 amendments.

We are looking at a program that just 2 years ago has been significantly reformed--in fact, as I said, according to the chairman of the Republican Ways and Means Committee, historically reformed. So this program is one that we can support and we should support.

Back in 2012 we also provided up to 10 demonstration projects in States that could be granted waivers on their State-based unemployment insurance program if they could come up with proposals that would improve the effectiveness of their reemployment efforts. This was an opportunity to give the States flexibility, to test out new ideas. Some of the new ideas my colleagues have shared with me--we

should do this or that--the States--at least 10 States--have that opportunity to apply today to do that. I don't think we need to reinvent that opportunity in this legislation since it is on an emergency, short-term basis. That authority sunsets at the end of 2015. But it is very telling, because since 2012, 10 States have had the option, but no States have taken up these proposals. So many of the good ideas my colleagues have suggested haven't passed muster at the State level. One would think if they were that compelling, if they were that efficient, that affordable, that one State, at least, would have taken the option, out of 10 available, to try these proposals.

The 2012 reforms also allowed States to drug screen and test individuals if they were terminated from prior employment for drug use or if they were applying for work for which passing a drug test was a standard eligibility requirement. I mention this because we have persistently heard proposals--particularly from the other side of the Capitol--oh, we have a drug test proposal, et cetera. Guess what. States already have the option to do that now. So it is not a reason to stop today and say we have to fix this problem.

I think this whole issue of drug testing, though, deserves a further comment. It is somewhat of a presumption that people who are applying for these benefits somehow are more susceptible to drug dependency, and that is not accurate. In fact, reflecting back to my previous comments, there are so many people now, particularly the longer term unemployed, who are middle-aged colleagues or slightly younger than I am, who have spent 20 or 35 years working, et cetera. They are not the typical person who one would suspect of that. But when we looked at data from the TANF realm--there were related arguments for testing in TANF--it turns out that individuals who are tested in these TANF programs, which is a welfare program, actually show an average of slightly less drug usage than the average American. So this whole drug issue has to be disabused. But, for the record, there are in the 2012 reforms, opportunities for States if they feel so compelled to exercise some of these options.

So the record demonstrates clearly that we have made extensive reforms. Additionally, as I said, in this legislation, we are requiring a second assessment process which I think is going to be very efficient and very effective.

This raises the final point. We have tried to keep this very simple. Even so, the State administrators came forward with a letter saying: This is going to be very difficult for us. The letter was refuted point by point by the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. Secretary Perez was the former director of these programs for the State of Maryland. He knows better than anyone what it takes to make these programs work. He has committed that the Department of Labor not only will--but can--be sure that these programs, as we have written them today, will be fully and effectively implemented.

So I hope my colleagues really come together. I thank my colleagues who already have joined together to get this legislation moving. Time is literally ticking. This is a 5-month bill. This is not a long-term, indefinite bill. The clock is ticking, so that every day more benefits are retroactive than prospective. We want to give people the chance. They have worked for it all of their lives--many of them--and now, in many cases, this is the first time they have really struggled.

With that, I yield the floor because I see my colleague, the Senator from Kansas.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and not elaborating much further than the comments I already made, but in order to get this bipartisan emergency legislation completed which will affect 2.7 million Americans, I would respectfully object to my colleague's amendment.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the underlying measure is a bipartisan response to an emergency in terms of extending unemployment for 5 months--a temporary extension. Given the emergency nature of the underlying legislation, I object.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, given the emergency nature of this bipartisan legislation to address the plight of over 2 million Americans desperately looking for work, I object and hope we can press on with the passing of the underlying legislation.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, once again, the underlying legislation is designed to help 2.7 million Americans who need the support. It is a bipartisan agreement. There is a time and place to debate all these issues, but I think the time and place now is to move forward and vote on the underlying agreement.

Therefore, I respectfully object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining the GM Recall and NHTSA's Defect Investigation Process.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Data Breach on the Rise: Protecting Personal Information From Harm.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, at 9:15 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Commtitee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 2, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in legislative session.

Madam President, yesterday my colleagues agreed by a voice vote to proceed to a debate on the bipartisan agreement to restore emergency unemployment insurance to 2.7 million Americans. This is great progress from where we have been the last few months, as I have made the case to renew these benefits.

I wish to thank my colleagues for their support and urge them to continue to move this compromise to passage, as it represents our best path forward to quickly provide aid to our constituents and supporting our economic recovery. I hope the voice vote yesterday is indicative of broad support going forward, and that this agreement will not be bogged down by unnecessary roadblocks.

Millions of Americans who have worked hard, who were laid off through no fault of their own, and are searching for work are looking to us to get this commonsense extension done and done promptly. I would again like to thank my colleagues who have joined in this effort. They recognize this is the right thing to do for our workers and it is the right thing do for our economy.

I would also like to particularly thank my Republican cosponsors who have brought constructive thoughts and ideas to the table, helping bring us here to this point. Senator Heller has been a stalwart in extending these emergency benefits. Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Murkowski, Senator Kirk have all contributed valuable thoughts, along with Senator Coats and Senator Ayotte. This has been an effort that has truly been bipartisan. I think it represents a coming together of proposals from both sides, but ultimately to serve the best interests of our constituents who again are looking for work in a very difficult market.

We have been working together since literally last year before these benefits expired on December 28. We know how important it is to provide this assistance to families throughout this Nation. We also understand that we have to go ahead and not only provide support for the families but also to support the local economy. This will do it. It will provide resources that will immediately go back into the economy and stimulate demand and stimulate growth.

I want to also thank my colleagues for the way they have thoughtfully approached some of the issues. Senator Collins has helped build upon this important reform to provide a mechanism which we hope will get people back to work sooner. We have incorporated another assessment in the process. It is fully paid for. People will get, in the course of their extended benefits, the opportunity and also the obligation to come back in, be assessed, be given advice, be given some coaching. We think, and some data suggest, this is one of the most effective ways to get people back into a job in a difficult market.

Senator Portman is a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and one of the real experts, who has been key to identifying appropriate pay-fors which are critical.

Senator Murkowski and Senator Kirk worked to include an examination of the work suitability and work search standards across the States so we can be better informed and better prepared when we have to deal with further reforms to our unemployment compensation system.

This agreement incorporates many good ideas of my colleagues. It is important we build upon the historic reforms Congress undertook in 2012. I will try to discuss those reforms in more detail later in the week. But as I said again, most importantly, it will help people who have worked, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are desperately searching for work and must search for work in a difficult economy. It will help our economy overall.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan agreement I have reached with five of our colleagues from across the aisle Senators Heller, Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk to provide emergency unemployment insurance to 2.7 million Americans. This commonsense, bipartisan agreement is one of the many things the Senate should do to help create jobs and strengthen our Nation's economy so it works for every American, so everyone has a fair shot. So I hope my colleagues will join with us and pass this bill quickly so it can be taken up for a vote in the House.

The individual and economic consequences of a lapse of these unemployment insurance funds are very clear. I have described many times, and my colleagues have come to the floor many times, and indicated the individual cases where people who have worked for years found themselves without a job, through no fault of their own, desperately needing some modest assistance--and these benefits are about $300 to $350 a week--just to keep going, to keep looking for work, to keep trying to be part of the workforce, which they desperately want to do. We have shared these stories. These individual hardships ripple across our entire economy.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office and other economists looking at this, not from the individual perspective but from the overall economy, find this is one of the most effective ways to keep the economy moving forward. The CBO has indeed estimated our failure so far to extend benefits through 2014 would cost the economy 200,000 jobs. That is simply as a result of these payments to individuals going right back into the economy. It stimulates other workers who have work and creates demand.

So restoring economic assistance for Americans who have lost their jobs and who are trying to find new ones is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do for our economy. That is why I have been pressing for an extension of these benefits over a longer period of time. But, we have reached a principled compromise--and I have to underscore the word ``compromise''--to do it over a 5-month period, with some retroactive and some, if we move quickly enough, prospective. But it is frustrating to realize that some in Congress don't want to do this. I think that is unfortunate not only because of the effect it has on individual constituents but also because it is going to adversely affect our economy. It is not going to add jobs. In fact, as CBO suggests, it could indeed take away jobs.

Let me take a few moments to address some of the arguments being raised, particularly in the House of Representatives, as to why they can't support this. Basically, it comes from the notion that: Well, this is too hard to implement. Even if you concede these benefits are absolutely important, they would provide economic stimulus, we just can't implement them.

These concerns were highlighted by a letter from the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. But all of these concerns are addressable. Indeed, the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has addressed these concerns point by point in a recent letter, and he has, importantly, committed to work collaboratively with the States--as has been the case in all of the 12 extensions or expansions of this program since the great recession--to do this.

We have repeatedly extended this program. There have been periods of time where there has been a gap between extensions, and they have had to look backwards, these State administrators. Secretary Perez is committed to do all he can and have all the efforts of the Department so this can be implemented successfully, and I am confident it can and he is confident it can.

But there were four basic assertions that were made that I want to address.

First, NASWA indicated that, well, States are struggling with antiquated computer systems that make it hard to implement changes quickly. Well, the States have received over the past 5 years $345 million to modernize their unemployment insurance systems. That is Federal money going to States so they can fix their computer systems. So this is not exactly an area we have neglected in terms of helping them modernize their computer systems. Complex program changes we have made in the past--I was part of the effort in 2012 to extend unemployment compensation benefits--and we made some significant changes. We reduced the total number of weeks from 99 to 73.

So we are not talking today about some complicated new system; we are simply extending the existing system. We are not changing the tiers. We are not changing any of the calculations they have to make. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I have been arguing consistently for a straight extension--not altering the number of weeks you qualify for tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 3, but simply taking the system that was in place on December 28, and fund it retroactively to benefit those who have lost their benefits unexpectedly, and then prospectively as far forward as we could go.

Let me also point out that I was making this request before December 28. I would have hoped we could have moved in December or at least early in January to go ahead and extend this program so there would be absolutely no disruption whatsoever to the States or for the recipients. But it has been a difficult and long process to get here. Frankly, without the collaboration and efforts of many of my colleagues, and particularly, as I have indicated, my Republican colleagues--Senators Heller, Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk--and my Democratic colleagues, including Senator Booker, who is here, we would not be at this point. So I am glad we are here. But we would not have any of these implementation problems had we acted in December.

Second, there was a concern that one provision relating to Federal funding for the administration of the program could be read in an overly broad fashion so that the State agencies would be so confused and it would be so complicated they could not function. So out of an abundance of caution, we have worked to address this. We have revised the legislation we had proposed to clarify the particular provision so it could not be misconstrued.

In so doing, we make it crystal clear that the prohibition on the use of Federal funding is limited solely to eligibility determinations relating to ensuring millionaires do not receive emergency unemployment insurance benefits.

Third--and this is a related issue to the whole millionaire issue-- there was some concern it would be difficult to administer this prohibition. Well, in our legislation, we have a pretty straightforward requirement that individuals certify their income in the preceding year was not more than $1 million. This is a simple certification that I think could be accomplished rather efficiently and quickly by the agencies. And the Secretary of Labor has committed to issuing guidance to help States with implementation, as the Department does when any new statutory provision is enacted.

As I said before, the Secretary has assured all of the States that he is going to work to expeditiously and efficiently give them the tools to implement this program as soon as the Congress passes it and the President signs it.

Finally, there was a concern about the retroactivity. That challenge, as I said before, is why I and others pressed so hard to get this done prior to December 28 of last year. But even so, States were able to successfully work with the Department of Labor during previous lapses to provide this aid to unemployed workers. We have had these situations before where there has been a disruption of benefits, and then we have renewed the program several weeks later. And the Department of Labor is confident these challenges can be overcome.

Frankly, all of these administrative challenges for the States seem to me to pale in comparison to the challenges

being faced by our constituents, who are in a job market where in some places there are three applicants for every job, in a job market where, if you have worked for 25 years, you are about 50 years old and you are competing with 25- and 30-year-olds who have gotten recent education. Maybe they have more high-tech skills and computer skills than you have in a market that is rapidly becoming more technologically oriented in terms of labor demand.

They are facing severe challenges. These resources are not lavish. The idea that someone would not work because they are getting $300 a week is difficult, I think, to imagine for many people, particularly the people who have records of work for 10, 20, and 30 years. And what they are doing with this money is putting it right back in our economy. Many are trying to hold on to their homes, and we have heard stories about that. They are trying to put gas in the car. People have contacted me indicating that they use it to keep their phones working because without a phone they cannot get the callback for the job interview to go and find a job.

So this is something that I think has to be considered and, in my book, weighs much more heavily than administrative issues, which the Secretary of Labor assures us will be dealt with, can be dealt with, and he will work with the States to make sure it is done effectively.

Let me conclude by thanking our Republican colleagues who have joined with us. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful and collaborative. They have really contributed in an atmosphere of exchanging ideas of thoughtful consideration. It is a model, I think, of how this Senate should work more frequently, and I thank them and commend them. They have done a great service for their constituents and for the economy and the country. Indeed, ultimately, many Americans will benefit through their great contribution.

So I will hope, as we come up to these procedural votes, that we can move forward, and then we could move this expeditiously. Then we would hope the House would respond appropriately, and we can give some hope and give some confidence to people who are struggling to find jobs in this very difficult time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Madam President, I wish to thank all of my colleagues for this very strong bipartisan vote to move a step closer to restoring unemployment insurance benefits for over 2 million Americans. I particularly wish to thank Senator Heller, whose leadership from the beginning has been instrumental, as well as Senator Collins, whose leadership, wise counsel, and thoughtful proposals have been one of the really strong forces sustaining our efforts throughout. I also thank Senator Portman, who has consistently thought about progressive changes for our training programs so that people are better prepared for jobs, as well as Senator Murkowski for her support, and Senator Kirk, both of them valuable contributors. I thank all of my colleagues today who came forward.

This is not the end of the story, but it is an important step forward for over 2 million Americans who are looking desperately for work, who need the benefits, and who will contribute to our economy.

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

Mr. President, today is National LIHEAP Action Day. Advocates from many different States are here to make the case for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This important initiative helps low-income Rhode Island families and millions of vulnerable Americans across the country pay their energy bills. Simply put, access to affordable home energy is a matter of health and safety for many low-income households, children, and seniors.

In Rhode Island this year, LIHEAP provided roughly $24 million, which allowed the State to deliver assistance to 27,700 households. However, despite bipartisan efforts that I have led with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to press for robust support for the program, funding reductions in 2011 and 2012, along with sequester cuts, have led to a decrease in the number of households served. As a result, nearly 1.5 million vulnerable households have lost access to this vital lifeline.

With one of the harshest winters in decades and the high cost of energy experienced in some regions of the country, including high natural gas and heating oil prices in New England, the importance of the LIHEAP program is even more pronounced. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average cost of home heating this winter will rise to nearly $1,000 on average, a 6 percent increase over last year. These cost increases are happening at a time when households are receiving lower benefits. The average LIHEAP payments have been reduced by more than $100 since 2010, dropping from $520 in fiscal year 2010 to $406 in fiscal year 2013.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the need to provide access to affordable home energy for the most vulnerable households in our States and join me in support of LIHEAP. This assistance is an indispensable lifeline, helping to ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other basic necessities such as food and medicine.

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

Madam President, the Senate needs to do everything it can to help create jobs, improve our economy, and address the basic needs of the average American. Unfortunately, many efforts to make meaningful progress on these issues have been thwarted in the last 2 months. Specifically, for the last 87 days, emergency assistance for job seekers has been blocked by gridlock.

Despite the best efforts of several of my colleagues, including my colleague and friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, today over 2.2 million Americans are being denied vital assistance in what remains a very difficult economy, but I am pleased to say that a group of five Republicans and five Democrats have reached a principled compromise to end this impasse and help get people back on their feet.

Indeed, I along with Senators Heller, Merkley, Collins, Booker, Portman, Brown, Murkowski, Durbin, and Kirk have introduced a bill to continue emergency unemployment insurance for 5 months retroactive from December 28.

As I have advocated, this bill contains no cuts to the weeks of benefits available or the structure of the tiers of benefits, nor does it include other problematic policy changes. It is, however, fully paid for and includes some positive reforms that better align the unemployment insurance and workforce systems to help get people back to work sooner.

It also includes language my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sought--and that was previously passed in the Senate 100 to 0-- which would prohibit millionaires from receiving Federal emergency benefits.

I wish to thank Senator Heller for his commitment to this issue, for his steadfastness, and for his recognizing that this should not be a partisan issue. He has been an extremely thoughtful, collaborative, and constructive colleague in trying to bring this issue to the floor.

I also wish to particularly thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Kirk because they also have been extremely thoughtful, tireless, and resolute in their efforts to find a pathway forward. They have all brought constructive ideas to the table. We have been able to craft a principled compromise that will provide aid to an estimated 2.7 million Americans, including 12,000 Rhode Islanders.

This is a vital lifeline that can mean the difference between making a rent payment, putting enough food on the table, and keeping the heat on as our constituents search for work in an economy where there are still more than two job seekers for every opening and in fact in some places three job seekers for every opening.

I have been working since last year to extend these benefits. Every day that passes is another day that hard-working Americans do not have the same type of aid as those who were unemployed and looking for work last year had. I am glad we have reached a principled bipartisan compromise. It deserves to move forward quickly so we can provide much needed relief to our constituents and can strengthen our economy.

I understand there have been administrative concerns raised about this bill by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, which Speaker Boehner appears to be using as a reason to not take up this bipartisan compromise. Frankly, administrative challenges should not be a reason to deny aid to working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there hitting the pavement searching for work in a challenging economy.

The Secretary of Labor has sent Congress a letter addressing all of the concerns raised by the national group. This letter notes the Secretary of Labor is ``confident that there are workable solutions for all the concerns raised by NASWA. From the Great Recession to the present, the Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to enact twelve different expansions or extensions to the EUC program. A number of extensions included changes to the program that were as or more complex than those included in the current bill. The Department of Labor has consistently worked with states to implement these extensions in an effective, collaborative and prompt fashion, and will do so again.''

Indeed, the States have implemented benefits retroactively several weeks after the program has expired previously. I would like to add that my colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this bill, out of an abundance of caution and a desire to allay these administrative concerns, have included clarifying language to ensure that administrative funding constraints related to the prohibition on millionaires receiving emergency unemployment insurance could not be read in an overly broad fashion, so that it will make this bill administratively easier to implement.

I look forward to debating this bill later this week. I am hopeful that with this strong bipartisan showing, we can convince our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol that this is the right thing to do for the economy and for working Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own and who are searching for work.

Again, I am delighted to join Senator Heller in this effort and our other Republican cosponsors. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful, constructive, and collaborative. They have served not only their constituents but this Senate and this country with great and deeply appreciated effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson and Representatives Dingell and Whitfield in the introduction of the Sunscreen Innovation Act.

According to the American Cancer Society, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. In 2014, over 2 million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer, and 20 percent of Americans will get skin cancer at some point during their lifetime. Melanoma, a dangerous form of skin cancer that often spreads throughout the body if not treated, will be diagnosed in an estimated 76,000 individuals this year, and will take the lives of almost 10,000 Americans. Many skin cancers are preventable with the use of effective sunscreen and by avoiding certain activities, like the excessive use of tanning beds.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have been working to ensure consumers have adequate information to prevent skin cancer. For example, I authored the 2007 Tanning Accountability and Notification Act, which has helped spur the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA review of indoor tanning bed labels. Through letters to the FDA and report language in the annual appropriations bill, I continue to press the FDA to implement new tanning bed labeling standards found to be most effective in warning consumers about the harm caused by indoor tanning.

In addition, after working with my former colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, since 1997 to compel the FDA to strengthen sunscreen labeling standards, in 2011 the FDA finally began to take action to finalize parts of the sunscreen monograph relating to the testing and labeling of sunscreen lotions. These regulations were over 30 years in the making. Last year, I urged the FDA to complete its review of sunscreen sprays and the use of sun protection factor, SPF, numbers higher than 50 on product labels.

One barrier to improved sunscreens has been the rate at which new over-the-counter, OTC sunscreen ingredients have been approved by the FDA. Indeed, the last such ingredient approved by the FDA was in the 1990s, with the eight new ingredients submitted since 2002 still awaiting review. It is critical that the FDA perform its due diligence to guarantee that the sunscreen products are safe and effective, but this review process also needs to occur in a timeline that allows these necessary products to get into the hands of consumers.

Many of these ingredients have been used in sunscreen products in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America, in some cases for many years. Unfortunately, delays in the FDA review process have kept these products off of the shelves in the United States for years while awaiting approval.

Our bipartisan, bicameral Sunscreen Innovation Act aims to improve the application process for these new OTC ingredients and ensure consumers have access to new and potentially more effective sunscreen products in a timely manner. Americans have waited far too long for the most advanced, effective ways to protect themselves from the sun.

I am pleased that this legislation has the support of the PASS Coalition, which is made up of such organizations as the Melanoma Research Alliance, the Prevent Cancer Foundation, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and many others.

I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders, as well as Senator Isakson, Representatives Dingell and Whitfield, and the rest of our colleagues to pass the Sunscreen Innovation Act in order to improve access to new and more effective sunscreen products. Indeed, as we look to the coming warmer months, it is important that we undertake serious efforts that will give consumers greater peace of mind that the sunscreen products they purchase offer the strongest possible protection against the sun's harmful rays.

Madam President, I am pleased to support the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, and would like to commend the bipartisan work of Senators Mikulski and Burr and Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in bringing this important legislation to the floor. There have been several previous attempts to reauthorize this critical program in the past, including when I was a member of this committee. It is my hope we can come together and finally carry this important legislation across the finish line to the benefit of children and families across the country.

Access to affordable, high quality, safe and secure childcare is essential for working families. Yet, such care is very hard to find. According to a 2013 Child Care Aware survey, the cost of full-time, center-based care for two children is the highest single household expense in the Northeast, Midwest and South. This high cost often puts fully licensed programs out of reach for low-incomes families.

The child care and development block grant has not been reauthorized since 1996. At that time, the primary focus of the program was to enable people to move from welfare to work. Today, knowing the critical importance of early brain development and the role early education plays in school readiness and successful outcomes for young people, we must work to achieve the dual goals of CCDBG to ensure affordable and quality childcare options for children and families. And we cannot achieve these goals without addressing the issue of payment rates, the level at which states reimburse childcare providers who care for low- income children who receive a child care subsidy.

That is why during previous attempts to reauthorize the child care and development block grant during the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, I introduced the Child Care Quality Incentive Act to provide incentives to States to set equitable payment rates so that low-income families would have access to affordable and high quality care for their children. I am pleased that the bill before us today includes some of the key provisions of my legislation, such as requiring States to conduct a statistically valid and reliable survey of market rates for childcare, report the results of the survey publicly, and set the rates based on the survey results, taking into consideration the cost of providing higher quality care. Raising the payment rates for childcare is an integral component to improving quality.

The other essential element to improving quality and affordability is our investment in childcare and early education programs. According the Congressional Research Service, seven percent fewer children were served in fiscal year 2012 than had been served in fiscal year 2011. According to Kids Count Rhode Island, since peaking in 2003, the number of childcare subsidies in the State has decreased by 45 percent. The $154 million increase for childcare that we included in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act was a step in the right direction. Clearly, we need to do more.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation to expand our support for working families, and ensure that all children have the quality of education and care to reach their full potential.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in calling for action to address climate change. This is a global challenge that has far-reaching consequences for our economy, our public health, and our national security.

I begin by thanking my colleague Senator Schatz, who is with us; Senator Whitehouse, my colleague from Rhode Island; Senator Boxer; and members of the Senate Climate Action Task Force for their leadership and for bringing so many of our colleagues to the floor last evening and through the early hours of this morning to call attention to the critical issue of climate change.

This issue is daunting and difficult. One reason it is so daunting and difficult is that it is a slow-moving crisis. We are often faulted for not responding to critical issues before us, but we are certainly faulted for not responding to those that have evolved over many months and many years--the nature of our political process, the nature of our attention span, and the fact that other issues crowd out these longer term issues. But what we have seen as we look back is a clear path of evidence suggesting that our climate is changing. Our climate is changing in ways that are going to disadvantage us--disadvantage us in terms of our economic productivity, our national security, and it is going to disadvantage us in terms of things that we take for granted.

Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, Senator Whitehouse, and I grew up along the New England coast. I am a little older than my colleagues, but in the 1950s and 1960s those coasts had wide beaches and homes built along those beaches for middle-class workers. All of that has literally eroded over the last several years--particularly these superstorms that have come up our coast. Now we are seeing that places we saw as our summer ideal, beautiful places, have literally been lost. Homes have been upended by storms. Areas that were frequently places for summer relaxation are now gone because of rising seas and because of changing climates around oceans, bays, and our estuaries. This is only one example. I could go on and on. This evidence is so clear-cut, so condemning, and so convincing that we have to take steps now.

Across the globe, these issues are also increasingly important. It is not simply a localized issue. This is an issue which is impacting every person across every part of the globe. We see temperatures increasing, seasons shifting, sea levels rising, extreme water events becoming more frequent, and heat-related illnesses and diseases on the rise.

As I said before, these changes are being felt everywhere--they are being felt in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and all across this country. California has been enduring a crippling drought, and in other parts of the world we have seen unusually large rains. All of these weather patterns suggest that there is a changing dynamic that has consequences. We have to deal with these consequences.

There are some who would argue that we should take no action to mitigate these impacts because there is a cost of addressing these issues, a cost to our economy. In fact, there have been proposals introduced in Congress that would greatly restrict the U.S. EPA, for example. Their position is: See no evil. Hear no evil. Do nothing.

That approach is only going to make this problem worse. That approach is going to make the cost for us but also, more profoundly, for our children and the next generation of Americans, much more severe. We have to act wisely now. We have to move forward wisely now.

I think we have to do so with the notion--which I think is quite obvious and true--that sound environmental protection is not in contradiction to economic growth. In fact, they work together hand in hand. We have to have the long-term combination of sound environmental policy to encourage sustainable, economic growth. A healthy environment is essential for our economy and for our quality of life. Indeed, the strength of the economy depends on the health and resilience of our people, our critical infrastructure, and our natural resources. The cost of inaction, as I have suggested, is substantial, and it will be paid.

We talked today about rising seas, and as we look at most of our major cities, many of them are clustered on the ocean. They started there. They were ports. They were points of entry into the United States. They are the economic engines that drove this country from its founding until today.

But as our seas rise, critical infrastructure is jeopardized. There have been discussions in New York City, for

example, of building walls in certain low-lying areas of Manhattan. That whole process is likely a multimillion-dollar process, and it might well have to be taken--certainly, if we do nothing--because the rise of these tides seems inevitable. But if we act now, it might be mitigated or lessened or, through different techniques, avoided. But it takes action now. That is why my colleagues have tried to galvanize us into this session to underscore the need to act and the need to act promptly.

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, economic losses from weather-related events, including floods, droughts, and storms, have been significant and have been increasing. That is sort of the dynamic we are seeing. Not only are we seeing an increase in these weather incidents, but we are seeing them in a larger scale and it seems to be an accelerating process--more and larger weather incidents creating more damage.

We in Rhode Island and our sister States, Connecticut and Massachusetts, saw significant damage from Sandy, but we did not receive the brunt of the storm. However, that was a factor that could have altered, indeed, hours before the storm hit. We were concerned it would come straight, pouring down on Rhode Island with catastrophic effects.

Fortunately we missed the worst of it, but that was not the fortune of New Jersey and New York. They suffered billions of dollars in damage. They are still trying to restore communities, and they are still trying to restore services. We have had some effects, too, that we are dealing with.

But what we have seen is these storms coming repeatedly. My sort of vague history of hurricanes in Rhode Island--it was the 1938 hurricane that came roaring through. I was not there, but that was a devastating event. Then there was the 1954 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, and that was a devastating event. But there was, it seemed to me at least--and this is anecdotal more than analytical--a decade or more, 15 years, almost 20 years between storms. In the interim the storms were the old- fashioned nor'easters. They would come and go, and there would be a little damage but nothing significant. But that pattern and intensity of storms seem to have increased in their repetitiveness and their nearness of time. What we are seeing is a barrage, really, of economic events--huge environmental events--that have huge economic costs.

According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since 1980 the United States has sustained 151 weather- related disasters where overall damages reached or exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these events tops $1 trillion. In 2012 Superstorm Sandy, the prolonged Midwest drought, and the nine other weather- related disasters led to damages in excess of $110 billion, making 2012 the second costliest year for disasters.

Let's stop and think. These disasters--that is $110 billion or so for Superstorm Sandy and some of the other incidents that took place in 2012--if they were avoided or mitigated, could allow public resources to be used for other things. That is one of the facts we have to face. This is not free to us.

If this prolonged drought in the West produces more forest fires--and there is a rough correlation between those two--we will pay for that. We will have to fight those fires. That is a huge amount of Federal spending before $1 goes to an Indian health care center or $1 goes to a Federal program to support higher education. Before $1 goes anywhere, we have to respond to those fire crises. That is only one example that is coming from the conditions established by a drought.

When we look at the coastal storms that are bearing down on us, we have to fix the infrastructure, we have to fix the shattered roads that line the coastlines, and we have to fix the sewer systems that have been shattered by these storms. It is not avoidable. So these costs keep accumulating.

Then there is another cost; that is, the opportunity cost of not being able to invest more in schools, invest more in other infrastructure, invest more in lowering the cost of energy--all of these things. We have to recognize that. As I said before, my State has been impacted, along with every other State, by these different weather phenomenon. The Sandy storm--mercifully we missed the brunt, but we still sustained significant damages.

Our coastline is increasingly vulnerable. That is the other factor. These storms weaken our coastlines and our barrier beaches. So when the next storm comes, the damage is even more severe, and when the next storm comes, it is worse. This cumulative effect is accelerating so rapidly that these damages are making us more and more vulnerable to storms.

In fact, it goes back to the frequency and the intensity of these storms. There used to be--at least anecdotally--a period of time where literally the coast could recover. There was a decade or so where, instead of severe storms every summer or fall, we had a period of accumulation of beach sand, of the ocean depositing sand, not ripping it away in a storm. That doesn't seem to be happening. We have to recognize that.

We also have to recognize that we have a Federal perspective, but the States are also spending a huge amount of money on responding to the effects of the storm, and that also diverts their efforts from education, from health care, and from all of the things States have to do.

This is not only a national issue. This is not only a regional issue. This is, as everyone has said on this floor, a global issue. Because of the global characteristics, it touches on interests of national security, which my colleague the Presiding Officer from Connecticut spoke about.

Rising waters--and they are rising for a very simple reason: As the water temperature increases, water expands. That is just simple thermodynamics. It is science. Simple thermodynamics is all I remember from West Point. As the water expands, sea levels rise, and that is going to keep happening.

If we mention the temperatures in the waters around New England over the past 20 or 30 years, they have gone up. And the water levels have also gone up. There is no sinister force out there. There is no whirling machine that is driving the water. There is no high-level combination of winds coming together. That might happen; that is the nature of a storm. But water keeps rising because molecules keep getting farther and farther apart as they heat up.

That water rise is significant to us in Rhode Island, but it is catastrophic to other places. Bangladesh is a country that is essentially on the water, and many parts of it are close to being underwater. If the sea waters rise there you have a situation of a relatively poor country that has had problems with its neighbors, and just to seek shelter people will be forced to move in and to put pressure on the boundaries. It could cause tremendous problems. That is just one example.

In Pakistan, we have invested a huge amount of money to work with the government of Pakistan to provide assistance as they battle the Taliban, to provide assistance as we move supplies through there to our forces in Afghanistan. The floods, the seasonal droughts, the chaotic weather they have seen there weakens an already weak government. This is repeated time and time again around the globe.

So this is, again, not just an issue about whether we are going to preserve our beaches, preserve our coasts or save money here in the United States to devote to more meaningful reasons. It could pose a serious national security threat as people are forced together with political issues already and now are under the threat of environmental catastrophe. They are changing borders, migrating, moving in conflict, and creating huge problems, undermining the weak governments that already exist in these areas of the world and providing further pressure on these governments. The result is chaotic situations which are the breeding ground for much of the terror and much of the carnage we see across the globe. This is related and we have to recognize that.

There is another part of this, too, that is often neglected. It is a challenge, yes, and a serious challenge, but also it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to create jobs to deal with this evolving problem. Frankly, in the American spirit, one of our greatest characteristics is when we have seen a challenge, we also saw opportunity. Other nations just saw a challenge.

They didn't roll up their sleeves and deal with some of the issues as we did, as our predecessors did, as our parents did. Now it is our turn. Will we roll up our sleeves, look at this as a real serious challenge, and not ignore it but deal with it?

If we do that, we can create good jobs. We can create jobs that will reward people and contribute to an improved environment. Weatherization, for example, supports thousands of highly skilled workers and additional jobs in related businesses, materials suppliers, vendors, manufacturers, et cetera. This is a very straightforward way to deal with the issue of climate change. When we make homes more weather tight and better insulated, when we don't waste energy, when we don't have to use as much, when we cut down demand and don't have to generate as much and put as much pollution into the atmosphere, and we do these things on a widespread basis, we put a lot of people to work. These are the types of jobs that many people have the skills to do and that are rewarding. They can do them, and we save ourselves energy. We save the pollution, we save the warming that comes from just spewing excess emissions into the environment, and we put people to work.

This is a low-cost, effective way to deal with employment and with energy. We have to do more of these things. It is not, as they say, rocket science. This is no fabulous, new, high-tech application that we need to develop. This is giving people and communities the resources and the support to go out there and to put better insulation in buildings, to try to use more alternate energy sources, to put better windows in and better doors to hold the heat. This is just straightforward but very powerful. It can help curb energy consumption. Particularly for low-income people, it can reduce the cost of energy.

One of the problems, again and I see my New England colleagues around that we face in New England is our energy costs are much higher than the rest of the country. One is because we have a poor distribution system; and two, we have a system also where we are paying for some of the pollution in the Midwest that comes out of stacks and is taken at high altitudes and then it descends into New England and the Northeast. So we have to compensate not only for our pollution but also for other areas of the country. So all these factors come together.

My point is we can do a lot collectively across the country. It is not just a challenge, it is a huge opportunity, and that means getting our public policies here in Washington right. That means investing in better energy, investing in better distribution systems, investing in improving those systems that exist.

One of our problems in terms of the natural gas distribution in New England is not only that it is old and inefficient in terms of delivering gas, but it leaks methane, which is not a very good environmental component to release.

So we have these challenges before us, and we want to go ahead and deal with these challenges. We see around the globe increases in precipitation, increases in sea level rise, storm surges becoming greater, and all of these are putting to the test every system we have.

Our road systems--I haven't seen the roads as poor in the Northeast in my life. Highways--I-95, there are potholes everywhere. Why? We have had so many storms over the last 2 years, so much plowing, and so little dollars to do the repairs. The roads now leave you bouncing along on the highway like you are not in the United States of America but in some second or Third World country. That is a consequence-- indirect, but a consequence--of the weather and our inability to marshal the resources to deal with the weather. Not just clearing the snow, but then going in and repaving the roads. We see that everywhere. But we have to do more.

This is a threat to our fisheries. It is a threat to our drinking water. It is a threat to our quality of life. Again, growing up in Rhode Island, we took for granted in the 1950s and 1960s that short ride to a beautiful beach--a big, broad, beautiful beach--swimming in the water and not worrying about the beach being closed because of environmental conditions, toxic conditions in the water. Some of that has changed, and we have to go back and reestablish that quality, that lifestyle. It is not just all about dollars and cents. It is also about the quality of our lives.

As I said before, and let me conclude, this is not just an issue of domestic policy, localized issues. This touches upon our national security. Ironically, we debate budgets of billions and billions of dollars about platforms, about what kinds of systems we will have in the air, on the sea, under the sea; what types and sizes of units we will have on the ground and what their training is like. But ironically, one of the things that is likely to trigger the engagement of our forces is this growing environmental crisis throughout the world.

Someone, I think it was one of the defense ministers in Nigeria, said one of the greatest problems the east faces, with the rise of these bands of radicalized young people, is the fact that because of desiccation of parts of his country, traditional farming, traditional aspects of economic growth and jobs and livelihood have been taken away, and so young people can get a gun and that is their new job. I think we have to be very serious about the national security consequences. So as we are moving forward, I hope we will recognize that these environmental challenges are also national security challenges.

There is one thing that was very revealing to me, and that was a few years ago when the Navy announced the Arctic Ocean would be able to be commercially transited during certain parts of the year. Again, growing up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, if someone had told me the Arctic Ocean was going to be a commercial highway for ships, I would have said that is preposterous. It is frozen. It is always frozen. It will always be frozen. Well, that is not the case. Last year, Arctic sea ice reached an all-time low, and as climate change accelerates, the melting of sea ice will invariably make that a source of navigation.

It will create new opportunities, such as shipping routes, but also new challenges. Who will patrol those seas? Will we have to create not only a Pacific fleet but an Arctic fleet? That costs money. Who owns the rights? Who has access to that area?

So we are looking at huge problems that even 10 years ago we thought were fanciful.

That underscores the final point I want to make. We see this climate process, this climate change coming, and it doesn't seem to be affecting us minute by minute, so there is this tendency to be rather cavalier about it. Beyond the people who out-and-out deny it, which I think ignores the facts of science, even people who do tend to recognize it think, yes, well, we have time. But what we are seeing is not just the intensity of these incidents; we are seeing them accelerating, and the consequences of accelerating with such rapidity is that what we thought might be a huge problem 2 or 3 years from now might occur in half that time. So we have to act.

I want to conclude by thanking my colleagues, Senator Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz because they have called us to come forward and to recognize this issue--to seize the challenge but also to seize the opportunity. In doing so, they have done remarkable work for the Senate and for this country.

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

Madam President, there is no doubt that when a sexual assault occurs in a military unit, when a servicemember is a victim or a perpetrator of sexual assault, then we all fail. It is not just the military chain of command; it is all of us. That is why the efforts of Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand have been so critical and important. They have galvanized this debate. They have forced action where action needs to be taken. Now the question is, What is the pathway forward that will achieve what we all want--the reduction of sexual assault in the military forces?

I have expressed before concerns with the approach Senator Gillibrand has taken because I firmly believe, based on experience in the Active military, leadership has to be involved at every stage--recruitment, training, evaluation, promotion, and retention. When we take the commanders out of any of these steps, we diminish their effectiveness in every one of these steps. Removing the commander from these responsibilities, in my view, will weaken his or her effectiveness, and the test of that effectiveness is not in the courtroom, it is on the battlefield, and the consequences of such weakness could be significant to the forces of the United States. So we have to continue to maintain a system that recognizes the need for constant attention to this issue, constant leadership and command focus, on this issue.

We also have to recognize that the proposal we are putting forward today--and I think this is critical--is not just about sexual assault; it covers a wide range of offenses, offenses like larceny of personal equipment in the barracks. It covers a whole host of crimes that are not directly related to sexual assault.

As a result of this bifurcated system that would be created, some traditional charges, such as AWOL, have been reserved for the commander, but a significant amount of charges has been referred to this new process. This bifurcated system will cause practical problems that will undercut the effectiveness of units to perform their mission and to do what is necessary to protect their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

The service JAGs--very experienced legal officers who have served in the uniformed military justice system in the United States--have pointed out several defects.

First, the proposal fails to address the complexity of these cases. Some cases will be referred to the special prosecutor, while others will remain with the commander, creating a multiplicity of venues, multiplicity of investigations, and perhaps conflicting decisions; all of which not only impose significant costs, but I think interferes with the sense the soldiers should have that they know what the system is.

Second, this proposal takes away one of the most significant aspects of the military justice system; that is, nonjudicial punishment. For example, as I illustrated before in my remarks, you could have a barracks thief who steals an iPhone and an iPad that accumulates to a certain amount to trigger a charge that has to be referred to a special prosecutor. If that special prosecutor declines to prosecute, then it goes back to the company commander. But the company or the battalion commander, given the level of jurisdiction, cannot now impose nonjudicial punishment for the simple fact that the accused has to accept the punishment, but if there is no way he or she can be court- martialed, that punishment will not be accepted.

For offenses that are properly tried or adjudicated through the Article 15 process, those offenses will literally not only go unpunished, but the whole climate of command could be significantly changed.

Third, there is a constitutional issue, which is that under this proposal, you have the creation of a single office--and again I will refer to it generically as special prosecutors--with the authority to appoint counsel--defense counsel--and members of courts-martial panels, and that raises constitutional problems.

Let me conclude by saying that we have had a vigorous debate, and it has been an important debate, but we have had the opportunity since that debate to get the results of the Role of the Commander Subcommittee from the Response Systems Panel. These are objective members--in fact, many of them have for years been in the forefront of urging sensible reforms in the military, of being the vanguard in protecting victims in many different forms. They have concluded that the commander should remain within the loop, should remain as Senator McCaskill, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Fischer proposed, with corrections and with improvements that I think are very appropriate.

I would urge that we support strongly the provisions Senators Ayotte, McCaskill, and Fischer have proposed. They strengthen the system. But I must say that to remove the commander as proposed would in the long run be detrimental not only to the effectiveness of the military forces but detrimental to our common goal, which is to reduce sexual assault in the military of the United States. If we do not, if we allow it to continue--it is a corrosive force that will undermine our forces more than anything else.

Committed to that goal, I think we should support Senator McCaskill, and I am pleased to do so.

I yield the floor.