Floor Statements

Madam President, today I want to recognize an extraordinary university, deeply rooted in the history of Rhode Island, Brown University. Brown is celebrating its 250th anniversary. Brown University's founding in 1764 makes it the seventh oldest institution of higher education in the United States, predating even the American Revolution. The university originally began as a small school located in Warren, RI, known as the College of Rhode Island. As Brown grew, it moved to College Hill in Providence in 1770, where it has thrived to this day and was renamed a few years later to acknowledge a $5,000 gift from Nicholas Brown, a member of the class of 1786.

Since its founding, Brown University has played an important role in Rhode Island and our Nation's history. Indeed, it was the first Ivy League institution to admit students of all religions. Brown remains committed to diversity and access. Over 20 years ago, Brown established the Leadership Alliance, a national academic consortium of leading research universities and minority-serving institutions with the mission to develop underrepresented students into outstanding leaders and role models in academia, business, and the public sector. Brown stands out for its willingness to openly delve into its past while staying focused on the future, and it has made a vital commitment to college access through its need-blind admissions policy, ensuring that no student admitted to Brown will be turned away for financial reasons.

Brown established a truly student-driven curriculum--the Brown Curriculum--in 1970 to allow students to personalize their course of study. In an effort to continue its edge in innovation, Brown launched its Plan for Academic Enrichment in 2002 to help transform the fields of research, education, and public leadership. Fiscal year 2013 saw the University conduct more than $170 million in sponsored research, helping the Rhode Island economy and making new discoveries that can improve lives.

The commitment of Brown's alumni to public service is also particularly noteworthy and admirable. According to a 2013 article by Washington Monthly, Brown ranks fifth among national universities and first in the Ivy League for the number of alumni working in public service. Some of the Brown alumni currently playing important roles in the public sphere include Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, and World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim. Through this commitment to service, members of the Brown community continue to find ways to improve the quality of life for people across Rhode Island, the Nation, and the world.

I am proud of the talented men and women who have contributed to the success of Brown University over these past 250 years. I congratulate Christina Paxson, Brown's 19th president, the students, the Brown Corporation, and the entire Brown community on this significant milestone.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:15 a.m. be equally divided between myself and the Senators from Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and both Senators from Connecticut; that at the conclusion of these remarks I be recognized to speak for an additional 3 minutes; and then following my remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Madam President, what has made America strong is we have provided opportunities for individuals to develop their talents. Previous generations of Americans have recognized this, and invested in higher education accordingly.

During President Lincoln's time, the Federal Government invested in establishing a system of public colleges throughout the Nation. After World War II, we opened the doors of postsecondary education to our returning veterans under the GI bill. As part of the War on Poverty, we enacted the Higher Education Act with the idea that no American should be denied the ability to go to college because their family lacked the ability to pay for college.

Senator Pell, my predecessor, with the creation of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant--later named the Pell grant in his honor--made the promise of a college education real for millions of Americans.

As part of the student aid programs, we invested in offering low-cost loans to create opportunity, spur innovation, and grow our economy. Our student loan programs were originally seen as an investment, not a profit center or even a cost-neutral proposition.

Today, our student aid investment aid has been stood on its head. The Congressional Budget Office estimates we will be generating revenue from student loans through 2024. Student loan debt has become a serious threat to our ladder of opportunity--our pathway to progress for this generation.

That is what brings me and my colleagues to the floor today. We must turn the tide because too many students are drowning in debt, and it has threatened to hold back a new generation of young Americans just when

they would be forming a household, buying cars or starting a business.

As student loan repayment plans stretch out over 20 years or more, this generation will still be paying off student loans when it comes time to send their own children to college and perhaps while also taking care of their parents in their senior years.

The bottom line is we know borrowers are struggling. We know the government could play a more constructive role in helping them and enacting reforms to increase fairness and transparency in this process.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently reported that delinquency rates on student loan debt are increasing even as we see decreases in delinquency rates for other types of household debt.

The cohort default rates for student loans have been increasing. For borrowers who entered repayment in 2010, 14.7 percent had defaulted by 2013, up from 13.4 percent for those who began repayments in 2009. It is essential borrowers know about their repayment options. That is why Senator Durbin's Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights Act is so important and why I am proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation.

But changing the trend of growing debt and rising defaults is more than a student loan servicing issue. We have to provide a real avenue to allow individuals straining under the weight of the estimated $1.2 trillion in student loan debt--many with loans carrying an interest rate of 6.8 percent or higher--an opportunity to refinance those loans at a lower interest rate. The GAO just reported that on loans made between 2007 and 2012, the Federal Government is estimated to make $66 billion. Clearly, borrowers are paying more than they should, and we have to address these college costs.

But we also have to deal with the issue of giving colleges and universities their incentive, their skin in the game, to ensure they carefully review their students' loans; that they direct students to the lowest cost and the lowest possible amount of loans; that they do this in a way which will make them truly responsible and conscious of the debt which is accumulated by students. I have been working on legislation to require that.

So I commend Senators Durbin, Warren, and others for what they are doing to deal with this issue.

Madam President, I yield the floor for my other colleagues.

Madam President, again I compliment my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Warren, and Senator Gillibrand on their commitment to reinvigorating our higher education policy and doing it in an efficient and cost-effective way so the future generation of students are not so burdened that they cannot essentially rise up, buy a home, start a family, and do the things that my generation took for granted because there was strong support for higher education at every level of government.

Madam President, before I leave the floor, I wish to turn to another key issue that requires urgent action; that is, the renewal of unemployment benefits for millions of people. It has now been 46 days since unemployment insurance expired for many job seekers. Today their ranks have swollen to about 1.8 million Americans, including 20,000 veterans who have lost their emergency unemployment insurance benefits.

Getting Americans back to work and accelerating job growth should be Congress's top priority--our No. 1 job. We all understand the answer to this is having a situation where there are not three applicants for each job, but there is a good job for each applicant, and we have more to do.

In the meantime we have to address the crisis for these families who have worked hard all of their lives. They only qualify for unemployment insurance if they lost a job through no fault of their own and are looking for work. But in that search, it is difficult. And it is certainly difficult to get by, pay the rent, put gas in the car, keep a cell phone operating, to take a call from a potential employer when we cut off the modest benefits of roughly $350 a week.

Doing this has historically been a bipartisan endeavor. We have all recognized in our communities, regardless of where they are located in this country, people who have worked hard, who are struggling and need assistance to make the transition from unemployment back to reemployment. I am particularly troubled today by the way some people are commenting about the unemployed, suggesting they don't have the backbone, the character to work; that this is a great deal for them, getting $300 a week. When, in fact, one of the obvious points, to me, at least, of this crisis of unemployment is it is not just young, entry-level workers; too often, it is middle-aged individuals who have done extremely well in their lives and now, for the first time, are coming into unemployment situations because of technology, because of changes in the workforce. They are good people, and they deserve our support. But, instead, they are being mischaracterized, dismissed, and ignored--perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this attitude.

We were only one Republican vote short of breaking a filibuster that would allow us, at least temporarily, to help out these people. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked very conscientiously, consistently, and thoughtfully on this critical matter. If one more of our colleagues can recognize the need to do this, then we can do it, and we should do it.

We are, I believe, on the verge of addressing the issue of military COLA reductions. That is something important we have to do, but let me point out, that does not go into effect until December 2015. There is no veteran who has lost his or her COLA yet, but there are 1.8 million Americans, and growing, who have already lost their extended unemployment insurance benefits. So the immediacy of this problem is compelling, and we have to deal with it.

We have never turned our back when long-term unemployment was so significant. We have always stood up and said, we will help you. We have also been willing to make changes to the program. In fact, in 2012, I was part of a conference committee that made significant reforms in the unemployment system. One reform was to cut back the weeks from 99 to 73. We provided to States the ability to have innovative programs in terms of putting people in jobs, in terms of making sure a job search was being thoroughly conducted by recipients. These reforms have been made. What we have asked for is a short extension of the program, and I think that is what we should be asking for at this juncture. But as we progress and as we get close to the point where

the 3 months has expired, I think we have to think more about what are we going to do in the long run, because we are still going to have millions of people who do not have work.

We have, I think--and it has been demonstrated by these folks-- Members on both sides who want to get this done. We need one more vote to procedurally move forward. I hope we can get that vote.

With that, I yield back the remainder of our time. I believe, under the prevailing UC, that we will now go into executive session.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for yielding me 2 minutes.

We are leaving here with major unfinished business. We have not extended unemployment benefits for 1.8 million Americans. They are getting to be increasingly desperate. They need this assistance as they continue to look for work in a very difficult time.

I think it is interesting, if not ironic, that the pay-for mechanism that was instead used to pay for the appropriate adjustment of the military retirees' COLA was the same pay-for mechanism we had proposed to use to extend these benefits for up to several months, almost 1 year. Yet many of my colleagues on the other side rejected that, saying that was inappropriate.

We have to come back. We will come back. We have to deal with unemployment insurance. We have to find a way, both sides, to come together and find a way to provide modest assistance for these Americans who are struggling to find work in a market where there are up to three applicants for every job.

With that, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m be equally divided and controlled between the two

leaders or their designees and that all quorum calls during that time also be equally divided.

Mr. President, in a few hours this Chamber will have the opportunity to restore benefits for 1.7 million American job seekers and help reduce the national deficit by $1.2 billion. I believe my colleagues understand that this is a fiscally responsible way to help job seekers who are still struggling in the aftermath of the great recession.

Unemployment insurance helps people to look for work while at the same time bolstering consumer demand and supporting the economy, which is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that renewing unemployment insurance for 1 year will save 200,000 jobs.

This is an imperative. We must do it. On behalf of the families who are struggling, on behalf of our economy that needs the support, this is something which must be done.

Now the question is whether we can move this critical bill forward and send help to those who are struggling through no fault of their own. Everyone understands that to qualify for unemployment insurance, they have to be working and they have to lose their job through no fault of their own, and they have to continue to search for work.

The reality in this market is that there are, in many cases, three applicants for every job. We have all heard the stories when we have gone home to our States.

There is a software engineer who worked for 20 years who has put out 300 resumes and who has followed people around to give them resumes. This individual was so persistent in trying to get a job in financial services that he would show up early in the morning and put his resume in the local newspaper for the head of the bank where he was interviewing. That eventually got him a callback, I am told, but not yet a job. It is very difficult.

We can do what we have always done--help these struggling Americans and help our economy.

At every point in this process, I believe we have responded to the issues raised by our colleagues to try to get this done. Instead of a full year of extended unemployment benefits--which I proposed, which we usually do--we compromised on a short-term extension just to get it done because since December 28 people have lost their benefits. They went off a cliff. Every week an estimated 70,000 more Americans lose their benefits. It is up to 1.7 million now, and it will be several million before this year has run out. So instead of a typical 1-year extension, we are asking for 3 months. Most of it or a large part of it is retroactive to make up to those people who lost their benefits beginning on December 28.

I was joined--and I must thank him for his tremendous leadership--by Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. This is a bipartisan effort because this unemployment problem--particularly this long-term unemployment problem--knows no political dimension or geographic dimension or ethnic or gender dimension. It is an American problem, and Senator Heller and I are responding in a bipartisan way. We put what we thought was a pathway to provide immediate aid to these job seekers and to give us enough time to work through these complex issues many of my colleagues have raised, issues such as, can we make the program, overall, more effective? Can we incentivize individuals to seek employment more efficiently? Can we integrate training? All of those are important issues, but in the context of a 3-month emergency extension, the first thing to do is to get the relief to the people and then sit down and conscientiously and deliberately work on the details.

When this concession on the short term extension wasn't enough to break the filibuster, Democrats put forth another proposal, again after consultation with our Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Heller, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Coats, and many others who consciously and conscientiously provided thoughts, provided input, et cetera. So this process was not ``my way or the highway.'' This was trying to find a bipartisan pathway, and we are still searching.

Based on those comments, we proposed a fully paid-for extension of unemployment insurance. We started off with 11\1/2\ months fully paid for. We used the pay-for that would have been an extension of the mandatory savings agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, which had been endorsed by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. We also included in that proposal, the long-term proposal, a major policy change proposed by Senator Portman addressing overlapping unemployment and disability insurance payments. None of these were easy to accept on our side.

The tradition has been unpaid-for unemployment extensions. Very few times have we paid for these benefits because they are considered emergency spending. This is an emergency. People are struggling out there. But we accepted the premise which our Republican colleagues suggested that this has to be paid for. Then we also accepted the premise that we couldn't pay for it with tax revenues. It would have to be paid for with something else. So we took a proposal that was embedded in the budget and we tried to use that together with a proposal that was first presented by Senator Portman. But we had a vote, a cloture vote, and none of our Republican colleagues supported it.

Then we had a vote on the underlying measure, the short-term extension, the 3-month extension unpaid-for offered by Senator Heller and me--Senator Heller joined us on that vote, and I thank him for that--but we still did not have the significant number of Republican colleagues necessary not only to move this measure forward but also to do the right thing.

We are here today and we have had another round of extensive discussions, consultations, and we are now about to pay for a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits. Some of it is retroactive, all of it is fully paid for. I will point out that it is February and this extension will go forward until March. We are reaching the point, ironically, where we might have more retroactive payments than prospective payments. That is why we have to move and we have to move today.

It is not everything we wanted, certainly. As I said initially, we would have preferred a full year to give people certainty for the year. We would have, as we have done more times than not, declared it emergency spending. But in order to conscientiously and thoughtfully and cooperatively and collaboratively work with our colleagues, we have continually agreed to make concessions. I used to think that was the nature of political compromise, principled political compromise, and we have tried.

Now we have a 3-month bill that is paid for by a technique called pension smoothing, which we have enacted on a bipartisan basis. In fact, the vote was 79 to 19 in the 2012 Transportation bill, MAP-21. So this is not a controversial pay-for. This is something we have embraced before. It is something that does not involve raising revenues, which is one of the benchmarks our colleagues laid down. So we have a short- term, fully paid-for UI benefit which can go out immediately to people who are suffering and which is paid for by a noncontroversial mechanism.

Essentially, it will do what I think we have been requested to do by our colleagues on the other side. Our request is simply, support us in this effort so that we can get this legislation accomplished.

One of the interesting things about this pay-for is that not only is it in the Transportation bill--due to expire, and we will extend it-- but also it has been used on numerous occasions by colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay for a various assembly of different legislative proposals. So this is not a controversial mechanism. I don't think unemployment insurance is controversial. I think people hopefully recognize that it is necessary in this situation.

We have also included a provision in this proposal that has been championed aggressively and thoughtfully by Senator Coburn that will bar individuals with income of over $1 million from receiving Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It has passed this Chamber by a vote of 100 to 0.

The other factor which I would argue to my colleagues is that as we pay for this extension, we are also able to approve $1.2 billion over 10 years to reduce the deficit.

If my colleagues are looking for proposals that are fully paid for, reduce

the deficit, and provide needed assistance to Americans who have worked, are looking for work, and desperately want a job, we need their vote this afternoon. I hope we can move forward on this bill and help unemployed Americans who are searching for work, help employers--this pension-smoothing mechanism helps employers--and also reduce the deficit. That is a very good trifecta, something I think we should support.

The other point I want to make is that the notion that unemployment insurance, Federal long-term benefits, should be a political issue is in stark contrast to its history. Congress has renewed UI on a bipartisan basis in the past on numerous occasions. We did it three times under President Ronald Reagan. We did it five times under President George W. Bush. That is the precedent to get it done today. That is a pretty good precedent on a bipartisan basis under two Republican Presidents.

One of the questions that comes up is does the Republican leadership--not some of the Members whom we have collaborated with very closely--want this to pass or will they say: No, no, forget the substance, it is so compelling. Let's talk about process. This is about how many amendments we have. This is about whether we can reform and reauthorize an entire legislative program based on a 3-month extension--most of which is rapidly becoming more retroactive, than prospective, than going forward.

I think the American people see through this. The substance is clear. This program has been repeatedly reauthorized to deal with long-term unemployment under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents on a bipartisan basis. It is fully paid for. It is paid for by a noncontroversial technique that does not include raising revenues. In fact, the pay-for is something the corporate world supports.

There are others who might say we are disappointed because there is another major issue out there, and there is; that is, the COLA cuts for military retirees. This is an issue that has to be dealt with, and it will be dealt with. But, I wish to point out that COLA does not become effective--those reductions--until December of 2015. People receiving UI lost their benefits December of last year. They are already suffering. There is no more time for them, in terms of our fixing it, before it takes effect. We need to act today.

Indeed, it has been estimated there are 20,000 veterans who have been denied long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend this. So for those 20,000 veterans, I don't think it would be sufficient to tell them they are not going to get their unemployment insurance because we are worried about what is going to happen in December of 2015 to other veterans. If we want to help veterans right away, today, we can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision going forward.

Let us help both the unemployed and our veterans and not try to use one group against the other, for a legislative advantage in terms of any one particular measure. The emergency for unemployment insurance that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more from now.

We can't turn our back on 1.7 million Americans, with that number growing each week. We have to help them. It has been 40 days since unemployment insurance benefits expired for millions of Americans. That is 40 days too long for those who were downsized with the recession and now find their unemployment insurance benefits being downsized again by Congress--downsized practically to zero.

I also wish to remind my colleagues about some of the reforms we already accomplished in 2012, because many of my colleagues have some very good ideas and they have talked about, well, if we are going to deal with unemployment insurance, let us deal with it in a way we can also make some structural reforms. In 2012, I was part of the conference committee between the House and the Senate where legislation was formally considered in this body, in the other body, and brought to a conference in regular order and we had a very vigorous debate about the structure of unemployment compensation, and significant structural reforms were made to the program.

This is not a situation where we have neglected to look at the unemployment compensation program for years and years and years. It was 2 years ago we made these changes. We strengthened the job search requirement. We have indeed allowed States, if they choose to, to drug screen applicants, which is an extremely controversial provision. That was included because we were responding to particularly many Members of the House of Representatives who said this had to be something the States can do. Well, this is something the States can do. I don't think most States have taken up the option, but this is something they can do.

Indeed, after the House passed this agreement, Representative Camp issued a statement noting--in his words--the historic reforms of the Federal unemployment programs are an important part of this agreement. These reforms will now help the unemployed get the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck. The package overturns arcane 1960s-era regulations and allows States to drug screen and test those most at risk.

I am always willing to listen to proposals to make changes, but we have to recognize we made significant changes to this program, in Mr. Camp's words--revising provisions that had been there since the 1960s, and that was about 2 years ago. So we have made these changes. But we are willing to work in good faith if additional changes are necessary. However, they shouldn't block a 3-month extension, much of it retroactive, that is pending before the Senate today.

Let me make one other point. In the context of this debate, there has been the suggestion that unemployment insurance is in some way inappropriate, immoral. It encourages people to avoid work. It makes us, as Americans, lazy and dependent. That is not what I see when I go back home. What I see are people who say--even recognizing my efforts to try to get this bill passed--that is fine, but what I truly want is a job. I want to work. I want to work for many reasons. One, the $350 a week I get, that barely keeps my family whole. It is a little help for gasoline, a little help with the rent, but I can't live on that. I have to have a job.

By the way, I think most Americans want to work because work defines us. Work gives us not just a place to go but gives meaning to all of us, just as family does. So this notion this is just this program that indulges those who don't want to work is profoundly wrong. Indeed, it is an insult to millions of Americans who desperately want a job.

By definition, unemployment insurance is based on an individual's work history. This is not a program you qualify for by showing up. You have to be let go, basically. You have to be told: We can't keep you anymore. We are sorry. You are a good worker, but we can't keep you. You have to go. In fact, if you are not a good worker, if you are fired for cause, you don't get these benefits. And then they actively have to keep looking for work. As I said, in the 2012 legislative provisions, we gave the States more authority to make that active search much more active, much more real--not perfunctory but an active search.

Because of the obstructions we have seen, most Americans now are just simply eligible for 26 weeks of assistance--the standard program administered by the States. But the Washington Post notes it takes an average job seeker about 32 weeks to get hired, and in some cases even longer because of high unemployment. In my State it is 9.1 percent. There are some States where it is remarkably low because of the particular economic conditions there. But as the Post points out, for the average worker, it is 32 weeks. Those 26 weeks will not cover their unemployment period as they desperately search for work.

The other cruel fact is the longer one is unemployed, the harder it is to get a job. That is what we know from research. That is what we know from our own sense of the economy. So the notion that someone, such as a chemical engineer who has been out of work for 7 months, who has a great work record--the first time he or she has ever lost their job--should take the first thing available to him or her at the lowest cost, the lowest wage, No. 1, I think devalues their lifetime effort; and No. 2, it potentially denies us of their productivity. I would rather see a

chemical engineer work at a job related to chemical engineering than stocking shelves because his productivity, his or her contribution to society, would be much greater doing the job they were trained for and they have the experience to do.

Our Nation is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to put their talents, their skills, and their experience to work. We need to get our country back to full employment. We all know that is the answer. This is an emergency provision, a bridge, if you will, to a job. We have to do more not only to put people back to work but to make the wages they receive allow them to live not just paycheck to paycheck but to live with the sense they are building some security for themselves and their family.

We have the resources to achieve this. We are paying for this provision. We are not putting it on the shoulders of the next generation. We are limiting it to a very short period of time so there is an opportunity to work and look at what we did in 2012 and see if we can do more. The question before us is, Does this Senate have the will to make it happen?

Renewing unemployment insurance isn't the end of our efforts. Our efforts are to get more jobs out there so people don't need unemployment insurance; that it is not 32 weeks to get a new job but is several days, we hope. This is the building block we need to put in place to move forward.

This process, this expiration, has caused Rhode Islanders in my home State great hardship. It is time to end that hardship. So I urge my colleagues to renew this program. This is one of those issues where it simply comes down, in my view, to this: This is the right thing to do. I honestly believe there are many more than 60 of my colleagues who fundamentally believe this is the right thing to do and the right way to do it. The question is, Will they vote that way in a few hours? I hope they do.

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

First let me add my accolades to those of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Senator Baucus. He is superbly prepared to be our next ambassador to China. He is a friend and colleague. The President chose wisely, and I anticipate his confirmation.

In a few minutes we will have the opportunity to provide relief to 1.74 million job seekers, to help local business, to get people back to work, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have thoughtfully engaged with us to find a path forward. Many of their ideas are incorporated into this principled compromise. It has been 40 days since these Americans have had their unemployment insurance cut. Now is the time to act and help our economy grow.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of providing aid to 1.7 million Americans--growing each week by an estimated 70,000. This is the right thing to do. At this moment, this is the right way to do it, and the only question before the Senate is will we do the right thing for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.

Mr. President, our Nation has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve To keep us safe. As the challenges facing our service members change, we must work to ensure that our laws continue to keep pace. In this regard, I have worked with my colleagues over the years to strengthen the protections for service members and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, SCRA.

One such effort, the Servicemember Housing Protection Act, which I authored and was recently reported out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, would enhance protections relating to the housing needs of our service members. I am pleased that these provisions have also been included in legislation the Senate will hopefully soon take up, Senator Sanders's Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, which I have cosponsored. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Today, I am joining Senator Graham in introducing on a bipartisan basis legislation to further enhance SCRA protections. The SCRA Rights Protection Act seeks to protect service members from being forced to accept mandatory arbitration clauses as part of everyday transactions, such as those relating to mortgage origination, automobile leases, and student loans. Often service members sign contracts that include arbitration clauses buried in the fine print, and this eliminates their access to the courts, which can limit their ability to assert their rights and reach a fair resolution. In disputes involving SCRA rights, this bill would make arbitration clauses unenforceable unless all parties consent to arbitration after the dispute arises, and would also ensure that service members retain their right to join with other service members to file a case together as a class.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these improvements to the SCRA that will better protect our military families while the men and women of our Armed Forces protect our Nation.

Mr. President, our Nation has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve To keep us safe. As the challenges facing our service members change, we must work to ensure that our laws continue to keep pace. In this regard, I have worked with my colleagues over the years to strengthen the protections for service members and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, SCRA.

One such effort, the Servicemember Housing Protection Act, which I authored and was recently reported out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, would enhance protections relating to the housing needs of our service members. I am pleased that these provisions have also been included in legislation the Senate will hopefully soon take up, Senator Sanders's Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, which I have cosponsored. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Today, I am joining Senator Graham in introducing on a bipartisan basis legislation to further enhance SCRA protections. The SCRA Rights Protection Act seeks to protect service members from being forced to accept mandatory arbitration clauses as part of everyday transactions, such as those relating to mortgage origination, automobile leases, and student loans. Often service members sign contracts that include arbitration clauses buried in the fine print, and this eliminates their access to the courts, which can limit their ability to assert their rights and reach a fair resolution. In disputes involving SCRA rights, this bill would make arbitration clauses unenforceable unless all parties consent to arbitration after the dispute arises, and would also ensure that service members retain their right to join with other service members to file a case together as a class.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these improvements to the SCRA that will better protect our military families while the men and women of our Armed Forces protect our Nation.

Mr. President, reauthorization of the farm bill presented an opportunity to make much needed changes in our agriculture policy to rein in taxpayer subsidies for big agribusiness, support the growth of small farms and local food systems, and ensure that our constituents in need do not go hungry. Unfortunately, despite the extraordinary efforts of Chairwoman Stabenow, the reforms included in the bill before us today fall much too short.

Most troubling is that the bill cuts more than $8 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I cannot support reducing hunger assistance for the most vulnerable Americans while creating new crop insurance programs, increasing crop insurance spending by $5.7 billion, and continuing to subsidize the wealthiest farmers. As such, I will oppose this bill.

The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging in my State, where roughly 1 in 6 Rhode Islanders receive SNAP benefits--a reflection of the challenging economic times in our State, where the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the highest in the country. According to a survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 15 percent of Rhode Islanders are food insecure, meaning they do not always know where they will find their next meal and thus are at risk of hunger. And this number has grown over the last 5 years, from 58,000 households to more than 66,500 today. Many local food banks like the Rhode Island Community Food Bank--are struggling to keep pace as the need for food assistance grows. The SNAP cuts in this bill cannot be easily made up by food banks and other charitable organizations even with increased funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

While the conference agreement does not include the far more damaging policy changes proposed by the House, it will reduce benefits for about 850,000 low-income households by an average of $90 a month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is on top of the across-the- board cut that hit all SNAP households last November when the benefit boost under the 2009 Recovery Act expired. When these cuts went into effect, families of 4 lost an average of $36 a month, while single- person households lost an average of $11. Without the Recovery Act boost, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal in 2014. Now we are asking some of our most vulnerable constituents to get by with even less--all while growing the safety net for the wealthiest farmers and the crop insurance industry. This is unacceptable.

As I noted, these remain trying economic times, with many Americans still struggling to find work or working low-wage jobs that do not provide the resources necessary to meet basic needs like food. This is not the time to cut a lifeline benefit like SNAP. I am deeply disappointed that some of the savings generated in this bill were not reinvested into SNAP to help meet the need for food assistance across this country.

Unfortunately, the conference agreement also maintains the duplicative USDA catfish program--a program that both the House and the Senate have voted to repeal, the Government Accountability Office has called wasteful, and the administration proposed defunding in its fiscal year 2014 budget. This program would require seafood processors to comply with USDA regulations for catfish while the FDA would continue to oversee inspections for all other seafood. According to the GAO, repealing this program would avoid duplication of Federal programs and save taxpayers millions of dollars annually. We should be finding ways to make government processes more efficient, not less.

While I am unable to support the conference report because of the deep cuts to SNAP and inadequate reforms to crop insurance and farm subsidy payments, I would like to acknowledge several provisions in this bill, including several that will support the development of local and regional food systems and improve the affordability of and access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low-income families. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes many measures from a bill that I cosponsored, Senator Brown's Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act, that will increase funding for specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. Another measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions.

The bill also allows Community Supported Agriculture operations to redeem SNAP benefits and creates Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grants, providing $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets by SNAP participants. A similar program has already been successfully implemented in Rhode Island. Farm Fresh Rhode Island runs the ``Bonus Bucks'' program where every $5 in SNAP benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to receive an additional $2 to spend on fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs, fish, meats, and cheeses produced by local farmers and fishermen. Within the first year that ``Bonus Bucks'' was implemented, Farm Fresh Rhode Island saw a 675 percent increase in the amount of SNAP spent at their markets. In 2013, 22 Rhode Island farmers markets up from 8 in 2008, have booths that can accept EBT cards.

It is exciting to see the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to help ensure that low-income families have access to nutritious local foods. These types of programs also help grow local food economies by encouraging purchases from local producers. A win-win.

The bill also makes several changes to enhance and promote conservation. Requiring farmers to comply with conservation practices in order to receive taxpayer-supported subsidies on crop insurance will help further the conservation of natural resources and ensure that our farmers remain good stewards of the land.

Thankfully, the conferees rejected a harmful amendment included in the

House bill that would have had far-reaching consequences by prohibiting States from regulating agricultural products within their jurisdiction. This bill also makes it a federal crime to attend or bring a child under the age of 16 to an animal fighting event--a slightly modified version of a bill I cosponsored that was introduced by Senator Blumenthal.

The conference report also includes legislation to reauthorize the National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA. I have cosponsored bills to reauthorize this program during the last several Congresses and am glad it will now become law. NORA seeks to strengthen and improve the oil heating industry through education and training and improving home heating efficiency. With more than 1 in 3 Rhode Islanders dependent on fuel oil to heat their homes this winter and heating oil prices on the rise, it is important to reauthorize NORA.

While Chairwoman Stabenow's efforts helped to ensure some positive provisions and reforms, the bill simply does not go far enough. It wisely eliminates direct payments but restores some of those cuts by creating new crop insurance programs, while not going far enough to limit commodity and crop insurance subsidy payouts. The bill does not even include an amendment that I cosponsored and was passed in the Senate to set income limitations for crop insurance making a very modest 5 percent reduction for farmers making over $750,000 annually.

We must do more to ensure that farm subsidies are available to the small and medium-sized farms that need it most and rein in the taxpayer subsidies to large, wealthy farming operations. And we certainly should not be paying for expensive farm programs by cutting SNAP, thereby placing additional burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet.

We are at a critical moment. It has been 38 days since the emergency unemployment compensation expired, forcing now not 1.6 million but 1.7 million Americans off an economic cliff and also draining $2.2 billion from State economies, and this is according to estimates based on data from the Department of Labor and the Ways and Means Committee Democrats. This has had a huge impact on families and a huge impact on the economy throughout this country.

Congress should be doing everything to focus on creating jobs and improving our economy. This week we have an opportunity to do that. That is why we should vote to renew unemployment insurance and help put more Americans back to work.

Restoring these benefits is an imperative. We must do it. We have to act with a sense of urgency. People are out there every day looking for employment. They are doing everything they can to support their families and themselves. While this modest level of support helps them stay afloat, what they really want is a job. So our constituents, who are trying so hard and doing what they need to do in order to provide for themselves and their families, are looking to Congress to uphold its end of the bargain.

Many of our constituents are running out of options. The rent is coming due. The telephone bill is coming due, and without a phone they can't actively compete for work. There is no way employers can get hold of them.

College tuition is coming due for middle-aged people who are out looking for jobs, for their children, and some people who are paying their way through college. They are being squeezed from all sides, and the expiration of these benefits is hurting not only them but it is hurting our economy overall.

Time is of the essence. It has been 7 weeks since Senator Heller and I introduced a bipartisan short-term plan that was designed to provide immediate relief. We tried different permutations of extending these benefits, provisions the other side said they wanted, but to this point without success.

I must say that I have found not only Senator Heller but many of my colleagues on the other side both thoughtful and willing to contribute--Senator Collins, Senator Coats, Senator Portman, and so many others, who are

sincere in trying to get this done. But what we have to do is get over this 60-vote threshold, at least to provide this immediate relief of 3 months to our constituents.

Again, the face of those unemployed in this downturn is a bit different than in the past. We are hearing and seeing more and more middle-aged workers who have worked all their lives and for the first time are confronted with unemployment. They sent out hundreds of resumes. They sought job interviews, many times unsuccessfully. They are squeezed because they are trying to support parents at the same time they are trying to support children who are in college or young adults who are at home.

This is a tremendous toll on people who have worked hard all of their lives. They are simply asking us to step up, as we have done consistently in the past, and give them some modest support while they search for work.

We are 1 month into 2014 and still debating a 3-month fix. At some point, we will reach the point where the retroactive benefits will be greater than the benefits going forward for the 3-month fix. That is not a place we want to be, not for people who have worked hard. The only way to qualify for unemployment insurance is to be working and then, through no fault of your own, to be dismissed from your work--and you still have to look for work. That is the whole program. So it is not right.

I think we have to move forward, and we have done this on a bipartisan basis three times under President Ronald Reagan, five times under George W. Bush, with overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis, no question. In fact, most times they were completely unpaid for. It was emergency spending, not only because people needed the emergency aid, but it is a great form of economic support to our economy.

The CBO estimates that if we fail to extend for the full year these benefits, we will lose 200,000 jobs over 2014, at a time when our first priority should be to put more jobs in the marketplace.

We have a plan today that is short term, 3 months, retroactive to December 28. It is fully paid for by extending pension smoothing for 4 more years.

In addition to paying for these benefits, it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion over 10 years, so we have a mechanism that not only helps people but also goes to the issue of the deficit, which is another pressing concern, particularly to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This offset has been used before. It passed 79 to 19 as part of the 2012 MAP-21 transportation bill. This is a noncontroversial pay-for. It has been proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle with various proposals requiring pay-fors.

We have an urgent need, a very short-term focus, and a noncontroversial pay-for, and I will urge my colleagues, let's support this, let's move this. If there is work to be done on the architecture of unemployment insurance, if there are other collateral issues or issues that could be thrown into the mix, let's get this done and then let's focus on those issues.

This amendment also incorporates a measure that Senator Coburn has proposed that would bar millionaires, individuals making over $1 million, from qualifying for unemployment insurance. This measure has been unanimously supported 100 to 0 in this Chamber, so we thought we would go ahead and put that in as an additional measure that would be embraced by everyone in the Chamber.

This is an issue that has huge support among the American public. There is a FOX News poll that says over two-thirds of Americans support and want Congress to act now to extend unemployment insurance.

Let me again thank my colleagues on the other side who have worked very sincerely and very diligently to come up with a solution. I say to them: Thank you. I appreciate it.

My concern is helping--as their concern is--those constituents who are getting increasingly desperate. We share this. Now what we have to do is find a pathway forward.

I hope, because of the short-term nature of this bill, because of the noncontroversial pay-for, that we can get this done, and then I think we can embark on a much more expansive review on a much more expansive set of issues with respect to UI and other issues that have come before the Chamber. It is time to vote--vote aye--to get this measure passed.

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

Mr. President, if I could praise my colleague for his eloquence and for his passion and say how right he is. I thank my colleague Senator Menendez for allowing me to speak, but I wanted to commend Senator Booker for his brilliance and for his dedication.

I want to applaud the Senator for New Jersey for his maiden speech and for using this opportunity to focus on the urgent need to renew unemployment insurance for over 1.7 million Americans. The expiration has drained an estimated $2.2 billion from State economies according to estimates based on data from the Department of Labor and the Ways and Means Committee.

Our constituents, who lost their job through no fault of their own and are searching for work in this extremely challenging economy, are looking to Congress to renew this commonsense and very modest support. They've worked hard and are searching for work with just as much fervor. But on December 28 the rug was pulled out from under them because some of my colleagues on the other side had decided they would rather let emergency unemployment insurance expire. And yet we have traditionally extended aid when the long-term unemployment rate remains as high as it still unfortunately is.

Democrats have been pushing to extend this vital lifeline since before its expiration. And on December 17, Senator Heller and I introduced a bipartisan path forward--and I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his support for that measure. This emergency extension for unemployment insurance for 3 months would give us more time to work on a year-long extension and address the concerns raised by some of my colleagues. This way folks in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Kentucky--jobseekers all over the Nation--would not lose unemployment insurance as we work through these complex issues. Unfortunately, that immediate aid was filibustered despite our efforts.

That did not deter us. We have kept on working through those issues raised by some of my Republican colleagues and we have addressed them. We are now proposing a 3-month fully paid extension--which is way out of line with past extensions. Indeed, 17 of the 20 times that emergency aid was extended no strings were attached.

President Reagan extended emergency aid three times and President George W. Bush did it five times.

We are still working to secure enough votes to break a potential filibuster. We are not there yet, but I remain hopeful. Yet the clock is ticking. I hope some of my Republican colleagues understand that jobseekers deserve a solution now and not procedural delays or obstruction. So I look forward to continue working with Senator Booker on doing everything we can to extend this vital aid to our constituents immediately.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up my amendment No. 2703.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Madam President, my amendment would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency--FEMA--to study and report on the advisability of establishing voluntary community-based flood insurance policies under the National Flood Insurance Program--NFIP. The Government Accountability Office would be required to review and comment on FEMA's study.

The study will help answer important questions about how such voluntary community-based policies could be implemented within the National Flood Insurance Program. It does not commit FEMA, the Congress, or local communities to take any action. It simply calls for fact-finding and analysis that could provide the basis for improvements to the flood insurance program.

The idea of community-based flood insurance is to assess the risk for all properties within a community and collect premiums from the community rather than from individual property owners. By purchasing insurance at the community level, willing local governments--and I emphasize willing and

voluntary--may be able to spread the cost of premiums equitably among property owners. In addition, they may be able to increase participation in the flood insurance program, including among property owners who are within the 100-year flood plain but who are not subject to the mandatory purchase requirement because they do not carry a federally backed mortgage. Expanding participation would ensure that all properties in the flood plain have coverage from risk.

Beyond increasing coverage and participation, community-based insurance may also offer new opportunities and incentives for communities to deal with affordability, including by undertaking mitigation efforts that will reduce risk and insurance costs. Indeed, the amendment specifically requires FEMA to develop a strategy that incorporates mitigation into its recommendations for community-based policies.

For communities in Rhode Island and along the east coast that are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and the reality of sea level rise and climate change, this could offer another tool to prepare.

There are important questions to be answered about the feasibility of such an option and how it might be offered. That is what this amendment seeks to do. A study of this option has been included in separate amendments and bills sponsored by proponents and opponents of the underlying bill, and it has been approved by the House twice as a freestanding bill.

Indeed, it has been part of bills or amendments sponsored or cosponsored by Chairman Johnson, Senator Crapo, Senator Shelby, and Senator Landrieu.

I thank the managers and authors of the underlying bill--Senators Menendez, Landrieu, and Isakson--for their work. They have done an extraordinary job in working to ensure my amendment could be considered. I believe this amendment will add to the goals of the underlying bill of which I am a cosponsor. Given the bipartisan support for this concept, I hope it could be adopted by a voice vote.

Before I yield the floor, one point. We have another emergency that is facing us, not only floods and rising waters, but unemployment insurance. I ask if we could continue the bipartisan dialog we have had. I salute my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have been principled in their pursuit of this objective, and we can move on that issue also.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen McLaughlin, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of the 113th Congress.

Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Illinois for his great leadership on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and for joining me in Rhode Island to see those great workers at Electric Boat and many other defense industries in Rhode Island.

I too want to commend Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and Chairwoman Patty Murray. We would not be here today without their extraordinary efforts, Herculean efforts by two extraordinary individuals. I also want to thank my colleague from the great State of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, for her work. She is an extraordinary colleague, collaborator. We have worked together to make this Interior subcommittee bill a very good one.

Chairman Ken Calvert of the House, ranking member Jim Moran, both superb participants and collaborators in this effort. Jim is retiring. I want to thank him for his distinguished service to Virginia and to the Nation.

I am very pleased in particular in this Interior subcommittee bill that we could make a strong investment in clean water and drinking water through the revolving fund or, as it is known, the SRF fund. This is not only about the environment and public health, it is about jobs. In fact, adopting our provisions in contrast to the House's lower numbers will keep approximately 97,000 more Americans on the job this year. That, I think, is significant. It is not just about the environment, it is also about keeping people at work.

We have also ensured that we can staff all of our agencies, including the EPA, so they do not have to face furloughs, so they can have continuity of operations, so they can do their jobs more efficiently and more effectively.

For the Department of the Interior, the bill provides solid funding for resource agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as the U.S. Geological Survey. The bill also includes $306 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

With respect to our cultural agencies, we have also been able to restore sequester cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, and we increased funding of the Smithsonian, which will help them complete the National Museum of African American History and Culture for its opening in 2015.

One challenge in the Interior bill is the firefighting costs. These are costs that cannot be avoided and they continue to increase. We have fully funded these costs and we have done that by increasing resources significantly. But we have to be aware, if these costs continue to grow, it will be something that is very difficult to sustain. So we have to apply our efforts going forward to see if we can, through suppression efforts, through other efforts, begin to control the cost of firefighting. This is something, particularly for our Western colleagues, that is absolutely essential. We responded to this need completely and thoroughly.

I want to also commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the other aspects of the bill, Senators Harkin, Feinstein, Murray, and Durbin. Their subcommittees produced great results. The Low Income Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, the Weatherization Program has been adequately funded, funding for Job Corps, TIGER grant funding, and Chairman Mikulski particularly effectively added $75 million for fisheries disasters, which the Presiding Officer from Massachusetts and myself are very keenly aware of and very appreciative of.

Funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is going to help make sure the Dodd-Frank legislation that we passed is actually implemented and the markets are operating efficiently. This is critical to our economic viability and our economic progress.

As Senator Durbin mentioned, I am extremely pleased that two Virginia-class submarines were included in this appropriations bill. They are built in Groton. They all begin in Quonset Point, RI, but they are built in Groton finally and often in Newport News. This is a program vital to our national security, vital to employment. About 2,800 people in Rhode Island will benefit from these important programs.

I think we have to do more to invest in our people, invest in our economy, infrastructure, et cetera, but this bill goes a very long way.

Let me also pay tribute to people who really deserve, as they say, a shoutout. That is the staff members who did this work: Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, Virginia James, Rita Culp, and Tiffany Taylor on my side. Senator Murkowski's extraordinary staff: Leif Fonnesbeck, Brent Wiles, and Emy Lesofski. They did extraordinary work.

Before I leave the floor. Let me conclude one point: We will come together this evening on a strong bipartisan basis to pass this appropriations bill. But we still have remaining work to do on the unemployment insurance bill. I hope in the intervening days that we can find a path forward to pass an unemployment insurance bill on a bipartisan basis because if we do not, there are 1.5 million Americans without benefits, 70,000 more a week lose their benefits, and our economy is losing out, because it is approximately $600 million a week that is being sapped from the economy, as estimated by Professor Lawrence Katz at Harvard if we do not act.

Now is the time not only to put these appropriations to work, but also to put our UI programs to work, so that not only can we help Americans, but we can also help our economy. I want to thank in this regard, with respect to the UI efforts, Senator Heller and Senator Collins. They are extraordinarily thoughtful Members, who are committed, as I am, to helping their constituents and doing it in a wise and prudent way.

With that, let me recognize the chairwoman who has come to the floor and say, thank you, chairwoman, for an extraordinary bit of work. Not surprising coming from a giant like yourself. Thank you.

Mr. President, this week is the 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General's landmark report on smoking and health. I join with some of my colleagues who have taken the floor this week to commemorate this anniversary.

Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry's report was groundbreaking. For the first time, the government warned that ``smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States''. This fundamentally changed how our country thought about smoking and was the basis for many of the successful tobacco control efforts of the past 50 years.

Indeed, according to CDC data, in 1965 the year after the Surgeon General's report--approximately 42 percent of American adults smoked cigarettes. By 2011, that rate had dropped by more than half to 19 percent. Hopefully this trend will continue, leading to better health for millions of Americans.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked on initiatives to discourage our children from becoming smokers, supported measures to ban smoking in schools, and worked to enhance the FDA's ability to regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

We have come a long way since I proposed legislation in the late nineties to deny tobacco companies tax deductions for advertising to children. I was an original cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in 2009 and incorporated the goals in my bill to keep the tobacco industry from targeting children as new customers. This law provides the FDA with the explicit authority to protect the public from deceptive cigarette advertisements, prevent the targeting of minors, and remove certain harmful ingredients from cigarettes.

This was an important effort. But we also must continue to address new tobacco-related concerns as they arise. For instance, I was pleased to join several of my colleagues last year in urging the FDA to issue deeming regulations asserting its regulatory authority over e- cigarettes and other tobacco products, and it is my hope that it will do so soon.

We have made great strides during the last 50 years in reducing smoking rates and preventing tobacco-related illnesses, but we can and must do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue these efforts, which I believe are critically important to our Nation's long-term health.